Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Your query foreign and relations returned 933 results.

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

	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 Are hereby withdrawn.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
	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
	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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. Holt was on brief. Emblematic of unsettled political conditions that have plagued the Middle East for many years. On the ground that they were entitled to a binding determination of sovereign immunity (including appellate review of any unfavorable decision) before being forced to bear the burdens of litigation.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198) Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198) Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that such a treaty is constitutional. Contending (1) that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to certify extradition because the Extradition Agreement between the United States and Hong Kong is not a proper
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: In this appeal we are confronted with a question of first impression regarding the scope of Congress's power under the Foreign Commerce Clause.1 At issue is whether Congress We commend both counsel for their excellent and comprehensive briefing on this novel issue. 1 UNITED STATES v. Which was concluded at the Second World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. Cases involving the reach of the Foreign Commerce Clause vis a vis congressional authority to regulate our citizens' conduct abroad are few and far between. CLARK commerce
	OPINION/ORDER Shore were on brief for appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER We agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction over this action is conferred by the
	OPINION/ORDER Because the challenged agreement does not have a direct. Tomatoes had a very short shelf life if they were picked from 11012 UNITED STATES v. Consumers are unable to access vineripened tomatoes for much of the year. Most United States consumers are relegated to eating foreign tomatoes that are picked before they are ripe. So they will still be fresh after shipping. Tomatoes picked in this fashion have a poor flavor compared to vine ripened tomatoes. The contract provided that LSL would have the exclusive rights to the North American market. Which is the UNITED STATES v. Hazera may engage in such activities only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the subject tomatoes do not have or involve long shelf life qualities which are included in LSL's proprietary rights. The Restrictive Clause was amended to allow Hazera to sell other seeds (e.g. The government alleged that the Restrictive Clause is
	OPINION/ORDER We agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction over this action is conferred by the
	OPINION/ORDER Mark Gidley
	OPINION/ORDER As will be seen. We summarily will resolve the substantive issue before us which we find not to be difficult. Have sought indemnification from the approximately 50 appellees (
	MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138) Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
	MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138) Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
	OPINION/ORDER Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
	OPINION/ORDER Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
	OPINION/ORDER 2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. After
	OPINION/ORDER Tamimi (Sharon) were married on May 19. Abdulaziz is an employee of Saudi. Sharon was awarded custody of the two minor children and child support in the amount of $448 per month. While Sharon's divorce case was pending in the Circuit Court for Stafford County. Abdulaziz was arrested in Virginia for the criminal charge of non payment of child support to Sharon. Bail was set for $21. The case was continued until February 8. Abdulaziz was released on his own recognizance on the conditions that he remain in the United States. Saudi further pledged to
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants in these consolidated cases allege that they were forced to work as slave laborers for German and Japanese corporations during the Second World War. Defendants Appellees are corporations (or successors or affiliates of those corporations) that allegedly committed these atrocities. These claims are not time barred if commenced on or before December 31. All raise section 354.6 as the primary basis for bringing their suits so many years after the alleged wrongs were committed. We hold that section 354.6 is invalid under the United States Constitution and that in its absence Appellants' remaining claims are time barred. The slave workers were often underfed. Many were murdered. Among these slave laborers were. A phenomenon that is still thriving in all too many parts of the world today.2 Although the statute distinguishes between
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief was Stuart H. Two central questions have been raised on appeal: first. Whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that are legally sufficient to revoke Libya's immunity under the FSIA. That plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for hostage taking adequate to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish subject matter jurisdiction. We hold further that the allegations supporting plaintiffs' torture claim are not adequate to bring the case within the statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immuntiy. The complaint in its present form is simply too conclusory to satisfy s 1605(a)(7). Plaintiffs have at least intimated that they can allege facts that might state a proper claim for torture under the FSIA. We will remand the case to allow plaintiffs to attempt to amend their complaint in an effort to satisfy the statute's rigorous definition of torture. We note that there is a question as to whether the complaint states a claim for relief upon which plaintiffs can recover.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Michael E. With him on the brief were Daniel Meron. Who at the time of the relevant events was the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. That the CIA was to
	MICHAEL PRICE V. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
	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
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER The Board did not have jurisdiction over the unfair labor practices charge. We will vacate the Board's decision. Much of Asplundh's work is performed for utility companies that need to keep their power lines cleared of tree limbs. One of Asplundh's operations is based in Cincinnati. Asplundh's employees are represented by Local 171 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
	OPINION/ORDER Mudenge were entitled to diplomatic and head of state immunity. ZANU PF was properly served with process and thus subject to a default judgment upon failure to appear in this litigation. BACKGROUND ZANU PF is a private political party whose members have ruled Zimbabwe since 1980. Robert Mugabe was the President of Zimbabwe and the President and 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 First Secretary of ZANU PF. Stan Mudenge was the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister and a ZANU PF official. They attended (and Mugabe spoke at) a private political rally and fund raiser at a church in Harlem an event that was sponsored by a non governmental organization called
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Michael E. With him on the brief were Daniel Meron. The dispute we address today arose from one of many instances in which Churchill's call to collaboration was heeded: the construction of the United States Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Is located in BIOT. The British have controlled these islands since 1814. Appellants Chagos Refugee Group and Chagos Social Committee are non profit associations that work to further the welfare of the Chagossians. Chagossians who traveled outside the archipelago were not allowed to return. Residents were threatened with death if they did not leave. All the cats and dogs on Diego Garcia were slaughtered. The remaining inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced onto ships and sent to other islands in the archipelago. The entire population of the archipelago was removed two years later. Alexis claims the Chagossians were not fed during the six day sea voyage in harsh conditions. She states that her mother was pregnant at the time of the journey but miscarried the day after arriving in Seychelles.
	OPINION/ORDER 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 (
	OPINION/ORDER Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term
	OPINION/ORDER (2) that the Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) are reverse preempted by the New Jersey Liquidation Act under the McCarran Ferguson Act. The motions were referred to a Magistrate Judge. This Court has 3 appellate jurisdiction because an order remanding on the grounds that a forum selection clause in the parties' contract has waived the defendant's removal rights is a collateral order that is treated as final for purposes of appeal. We will reverse. I. Munich Re is a reinsurance company organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany. Integrity was a stock property and casualty insurance company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Will submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will comply with all requirements to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of such Court. Delinquency proceedings were instituted against Integrity.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Bradley S. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Agreeing with the district court that the Insti tute is immune. Congress wanted to
	JAMES C. WOOD, JR V. AMER INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN II argued the cause for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
	PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts.
	OPINION/ORDER As potentially liable defendants.3 Defendant AT&T is listed as
	PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts.
	OPINION/ORDER Which Defendant AT&T is listed as
	OPINION/ORDER Low is substituted for his predecessor as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of California. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are three insurance companies and one trade organization of insurance companies who do business in California. To persons in Europe to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. 1 The information that the insurance companies must provide is: (1) the number of insurance policies. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
	OPINION/ORDER Integral Research & Development Corp. (
	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
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the appellees. Was assassinated in Bogota.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. Alleging that price fixing activities which took place entirely in Japan are prosecutable because they were intended to have. Did in fact have. Because the issue of successor liability is not before us. We treat NPI as if it were the sole defendant and as if it. Were alleged to have committed the acts described in the indictment. 2 fix the price of thermal fax paper throughout North America. NPI and other manufacturers who were privy to the scheme purportedly accomplished their objective by selling the paper in Japan to unaffiliated trading houses on condition that the latter charge specified (inflated) prices for the paper when they resold it in North America. NPI monitored the paper trail and confirmed that the prices charged to end users were those that it had arranged. ANALYSIS We begin and end with the overriding legal question.2 Because this question is one of statutory construction. Is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court found that the Republic of the Philippines was harassing witnesses who had testified against it in a suit it had brought in federal court in New Jersey. We will reverse. The district court determined that all but two of the counts against Westinghouse were subject to international arbitration. Most of the Republic's claims against Westinghouse were referred to arbitration under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce.[fn1] In the remaining two counts. Huge foreign loans were incurred to pay for the project.
	OPINION/ORDER The defendants' main argument on appeal is that the district court erred in determining that the Honduran laws that served as the underlying basis of their convictions were valid and enforceable. The defendants contend that the Honduran laws were invalid. There was no violation of foreign law upon which to base their convictions.1 The defendants' challenge to the validity of the Honduran laws requires us to undertake our own foreign law determination. Our task is complicated by conflicting representations from Honduran officials regarding the validity of the Honduran laws. Shortly after the defendants were convicted. We must decide whether our courts are bound by a foreign government's new representations regarding the validity of its laws when The Lacey Act prohibits the importation of
	OPINION/ORDER Alito heard oral argument in this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). **Honorable Alan D. Because Rozenkier's claims are nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. Was subjected to inhumane Nazi medical experimentation while he was imprisoned at the Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camps. He was forced to undergo injections of unknown chemical substances into his 3 testicles causing swelling and bleeding of his genitalia. He married but was unable to have children. When Rozenkier learned definitively that his
	OPINION/ORDER Castal was on brief. S was on brief. At issue here are the exceptions for actions arising out of a foreign state's commercial or tortious activity. We affirm.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Michael D. With her on the brief were David A. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. With her on the brief were Peter D. I. Background The facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinion. The appellants are 15 women from China. Noting that
	UNITED STATES V. HERSH (7/17/2002, NO. 00-14592) He was
	UNITED STATES V. HERSH (7/17/2002, NO. 00-14592) He was
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER The question whether the decision by the Secretary of State to surrender him is subject to judicial review. Extradition is a two part process. A federal judicial officer determines whether the crime is extraditable and whether there is probable cause to sustain the charge. The fugitive is certified as extraditable to the Secretary of State. 18 U.S.C. § 3184.1 This decision is subject to limited 1 Section 3184 provides in pertinent part: Whenever there is a treaty or convention for extradition between the United States and any foreign government. 312 (1925) (holding that habeas corpus is available only to inquire whether the magistrate had jurisdiction. Whether the offense charged is within the extradition treaty. Whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty). In this case a magistrate judge determined that Cornejo Barreto was extraditable. The Secretary of State determines in his discretion whether the fugitive will be surrendered. 18 U.S.C. § 3186.2 The Secretary decided to extradite Cornejo Barreto.
	OPINION/ORDER Judge) vacating restraining notices and orders of attachment imposed with respect to an account of the Banco Central de la República Argentina at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the ground that those assets were protected from attachment by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. They contend that they are entitled to attach $105 million of BCRA's funds held in the FRBNY Account (the
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER The subpoenas were initially issued. We hold that the Canadian request for assistance should have been granted and the subpoenas should not have been quashed by the district court.
	OPINION/ORDER The subpoenas were initially issued. We hold that the Canadian request for assistance should have been granted and the subpoenas should not have been quashed by the district court.
	OPINION/ORDER He was
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Joel V. With him on the brief was Bridget M. The interest income is susceptible to tax in both the United States and the foreign state. Where the relevant tax rate in the U.S. was 50% and in the foreign country was 25% with a 10% refund. Were the foreign rate 50% with no refund. Thus the two countries are on a see saw: When one country's tax revenue goes up. Or rather this iteration of this case (for it is the third time we have heard an appeal from the Tax Court concerning the same transaction). Is a peculiar elaboration of these simple principles.1 During the 1970s and early 1980s. In an The previous iterations of this case are. Becoming a middleman on the old loans (paying the creditors what was owed to them from the original borrowers and in turn receiving payments from the original borrowers) and. This appeal is about the U.S. tax treatment of that $139. We will refer to appellant as PNC even when speaking of the Riggs I through V period. 4 First. PNC's loans to the Central Bank were
	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 (
	OPINION/ORDER That decision is the subject of the appeal in case No. 99 56498. MOD moved the district court for a determination that its judgment against Cubic was immune from attachment. JURISDICTION The denial of a motion to intervene as of right is an appealable final order. District court orders entered after the entry of judgment are generally reviewable by a separate appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The judgment against the Iranian defendants was for Flatow sued under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Jogi is an Indian citizen who was charged with aggravated battery with a firearm in Champaign County. He was removed from the United States and returned to India. Nor is there any hint that the Champaign County law enforcement officials ever contacted the Indian consulate on their own initiative on Jogi's behalf. At some point after Jogi was in prison. The only one that is pertinent for our purposes is his present case. It concluded that Jogi's allegations were insufficient to trigger subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS. Which was not available at the time the district court ruled. He was charged in Champaign County. Jogi's mother were present. That Jogi was Indian. He was released after serving six years. At no time was Jogi ever informed of his right to contact the Indian consulate. He attached an affidavit asserting that he 4 No. 01 1657 was unaware of his Vienna Convention rights and that he would have contacted the Indian consulate to avail himself of its assistance with the Champaign County prosecution had he been informed of his right to do so.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Al Hamdi's principal argument is that. Finding that the State Department's interpretation of who is a
	OPINION/ORDER This case presents the question whether a foreign national who is not informed of his right to consular notification under Article 36 of the OE Defendants also filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Which was submitted to all judges in regular active service for a vote. Thus that petition is denied. Concluded that the answer was yes. Jogi I also held that the Vienna Convention is a self executing treaty. Since Jogi I was decided. The Court's reference to § 1983 prompted us to request supplemental memoranda in Jogi's case addressing two questions: (1) whether it is necessary to rely on § 1350 for subject matter jurisdiction in a Vienna Convention case. The No. 01 1657 3 parties have submitted their memoranda. We also have the benefit of an amicus curiae submission from the United States. In the interest of avoiding a decision on grounds broader than are necessary to resolve the case. We are persuaded that it is best not to rest subject matter jurisdiction on the ATS. Since it is unclear whether the treaty violation Jogi has alleged amounts to a
	OPINION/ORDER 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 (
	OPINION/ORDER Chief Judge: This interpleader litigation is part of an on going dispute between the Philippine government and creditors of the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos over assets Marcos allegedly secreted from the government while he was President of the Philippines. The assets were held in an account in New York by Merrill Lynch. Until the assets were turned over to the district court in September 2000. The Republic of the Philippines (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court ruled that Defendants are entitled to immunity under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention) and dismissed the action. SHIN 5 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant Bong Kil Shin is the Deputy Consul General of the Republic of Korea Consulate General in San Francisco. Defendant Mee Sook Shin is his wife. Plaintiff Tae Sook Park is a Chinese national who began working as a domestic servant for Defendants in 1996. Shin was stationed at the Korean Embassy in China. Shin was transferred to the Korean Consulate in San Francisco. The Korean Consulate in San Francisco does not have an area in which to entertain guests and. It was customary for the Shins to entertain at their home. She was not paid the minimum wage or overtime pay. That on numerous occasions Defendants did not take her to the hospital when she was ill. The district court held that Defendants were entitled to consular immunity under the Vienna Convention. The existence of sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) are questions of law that.
	UNITED STATES V. GECAS This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The district court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2713.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. PSC</SPAN> were on brief. They are joined by an intervenor. Two questions of statutory interpretation one critical to the resolution of these appeals and another of potential significance were not addressed below. We do not have a fully developed record to assist us in their resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3989.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants are practitioners of Falun Gong. Most of the appellants are current or past residents of the People's Republic of China. Two of the appellants are United States citizens and a third is an alien resident of Illinois. They have denounced the movement as a cult and have accused it of seeking to subvert or 1 We accept. President Jiang himself declared that suppressing Falun Gong was one of the 4 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-3291.man.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. The district court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7213a.html">REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA V. PHILIP MORRIS<BR></A><BR> Et al.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-7213a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Timothy M. Sullivan were on the brief of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. We hold that we are without appellate jurisdiction to review the orders the district court already has issued and that we have no warrant to prohibit the district court from remanding to state court those cases upon which it has not yet acted. Twenty nine other foreign states or subdivisions have filed similar actions not now before us in state and federal courts around the United States. The court ruled that Guatemala's claims were not viable because Guatemala could not establish that its alleged inju ries. That is. Were proximately caused by any misconduct on the part of the tobacco companies. The cases under review are unlike those the district court dismissed only in that they were filed originally in state courts and therefore reached the district court after the tobacco companies removed them to a federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1441. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211727.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is the consolidation of six separate appeals. Were targeted at avoiding the taxes the Republics placed on tobacco imported into their respective countries. The Revenue Rule The revenue rule is a long standing common law rule that prevents the courts of one sovereign from enforcing or adjudicating tax claims from another sovereign.1 Although 18th century English courts originally developed the rule to protect British trade. 2 it has a long history of recognition and application in this country.3 The rule was originally justified in England on the basis of nationalistic commercial protectionism. 4 but its application in this country is based and justified on the grounds of respect for sovereignty and the separation of powers. Substance over form We initially recognize that it is the substance of a claim. That is important under the revenue rule. 268 F.3d at 130 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></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="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1326.html">B-WEST IMPORTS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-1112.htm">98-1112 -- SOUTHWAY V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA -- 12/09/1999<BR></A><BR> Provides: <p> Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></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-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An amended opinion is attached hereto. We have consolidated these cases for disposition on appeal. The New Mexico Name maintains that the English judgment stemmed from an action that is repugnant to New Mexico's public policy as the judgment: (a) violates New Mexico's securities laws. (b) is based on unconscionable contracts. (e) is based on illusory contacts. Because the English system of jurisprudence is incompatible with American standards of due process. Two Utah Names also contend that the district court's approval of the English post judgment interest of eight percent per annum was incorrect. We also hold that the Lloyd's judgments are not repugnant to New Mexico's public policy. We hold that the parties in this case are diverse. I. BACKGROUND Numerous courts have summarized the basic facts applicable to the underlying litigation. These facts are not in dispute. Lloyd's is not an insurer. Rather is the regulator of an insurance market located in London. Names are passive investors in the sophisticated scheme. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60F75E598B71606D88256AD40078B022/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1210.html">TORRINGTON CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3150F2CB96356DB088256E5A00707CEF/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clerici's Lawsuit in Panama Clerici is a Panamanian citizen and merchant who also resides in Miami. Certain property of NoName was seized. The attachment of NoName's property was vacated. The 2 resolution of Clerici's civil lawsuit was appealed and affirmed by Panama's First Superior Court of Justice on November 13. NoName alleged that it was a new business in Panama and in the process of expanding. In which Clerici was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014463.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 9/30/02 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Circuit Judge: Appellants were indicted and convicted of engaging in a scheme to defraud the governments of Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues applicable to the importation and sale of liquor. They assert that the district court erred in denying their pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment because a scheme to defraud a foreign government of duties and taxes is not cognizable under the wire fraud statute. Appellants also contend that their motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence presented at trial was 2 1 I. While all applicable Maryland and federal taxes were paid on the liquor. There is no evidence that any Canadian taxes or duties were ever paid on the liquor that was transported into Canada. Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) was alerted to the scheme after agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1419.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Cynthia C. Of counsel on the brief were Lois E. The decisions of the Board have been consolidated on appeal. BACKGROUND Rath is a German citizen who applied to register the marks for goods and services including. The applications were based upon ownership of a German trademark registration for the marks. The marks were again found to be primarily merely surnames. The Board also held that section 44 of the Lanham Act (which implements the Paris Convention) does not require registration of a mark that is primarily merely a surname. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B). 1420 2 1 II Rath does not appeal the Board's holdings that his marks are primarily merely surnames under the meaning of section 2(e)(4). He specifically </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-7075a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Haig V. With him on the brief were Sylvia J. Circuit Judge: The chief question in this appeal is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. Since we conclude El Hadad was not a civil servant under the Act. El Hadad is an Egyptian citizen who earned a bachelor's degree in accounting in 1976 and began a career marked for many years by one promotion and positive job review after another. Where he was an auditor and supervising accountant in the cultural attaché's office and where he soon discovered that the cultural attaché. Others were involved in embezzling no less than $2 million in U.A.E. state funds. He was promoted and commended for his work while the cultural attaché and his accomplices were sacked. El Hadad was accused of financial impropriety in connection with the very embezzlement he had exposed. Why he was accused for the record and the district court's opinion make clear that the accusation was baseless to the core is a mystery. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research have directly impacted the case of Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beach & Wilcox were on brief for appellants. Wilcox were on brief for appellants. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for appellee. Mortensen were on brief for appellee. Of the Ninth Circuit. Asserting that Turkey is the more appropriate forum. Was operating a cruise ship casino. As foreigners doing business in Turkey were required to have Turkish partners. The agreement was made subject to the partners' procurement of all necessary permits from the Turkish government by the Merciers. Sheraton asserts that the Turkish permits were never obtained and that the approval of its parent corporation was never given. The Protocol was conditioned on the Merciers' participation in Lidya and on the approval of gambling by the Turkish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1084A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ordered that the suggestion for rehearing en banc be denied. The Treaty Language The extradition request in this case was made by authorities of the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong pursuant to two bilateral treaties dating from 1972 a primary agreement and a supplemental treaty that both the United States and the United Kingdom have signed and ratified.1 The main treaty applies to Hong Kong by an exchange of diplomatic notes made in October 1976. While the supplemental treaty by its terms applies to the United Kingdom and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1812a.html">INTL LNGSHRMN ASSN V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/01-16203.opn.html">IRAOLA & CIA., S.A. V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (3/31/2003, NO. 01-16203)<BR></A><BR> 1) Iraola was an Argentine company specializing in distributing medical supplies to hospitals in Argentina. Was K C's international expansion manager for the medical product lines division. Iraola and K C entered into an oral agreement pursuant to which Iraola was to distribute K C's medical products in Argentina. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/01-16203.opn.html">IRAOLA & CIA., S.A. V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (3/31/2003, NO. 01-16203)<BR></A><BR> 1) Iraola was an Argentine company specializing in distributing medical supplies to hospitals in Argentina. Was K C's international expansion manager for the medical product lines division. Iraola and K C entered into an oral agreement pursuant to which Iraola was to distribute K C's medical products in Argentina. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7063a.html">CREIGHTON LTD V. GOVT ST QATAR<BR></A><BR> Qatar was to pay Creighton in Qatar. <p> and in fact all payments were made there in Qatari riyals. <p> The contract provided that it was to be performed and <p> interpreted under Qatari law and that all disputes were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022785p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which were offenses punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.1 On August 30. The government maintains that Small was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and paroled on November 22. Small was convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year in Japan. The dispositive question on appeal is whether the district court correctly recognized the judgment of the Japanese court for the purpose of Small's § 922(g)(1) conviction.2 This is an issue of first impression in this court. Small makes two main arguments with regard to this issue: (1) the district court incorrectly held that the Japanese conviction was fundamentally fair by failing to look at the totality of the circumstances. (2) the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Japanese conviction was fundamentally fair. Our review of questions of law is plenary. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lund LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Flexner</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7250a.html">WORLD WIDE MINERALS V. REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN<BR></A><BR> Keller argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114141.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the case pursuant to the The Castle Peak Power Station was owned by Castel Peak Power Co. The station was operated by China Light & Power ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-7063a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Qatar was to pay Creighton in Qatar. In fact all payments were made there in Qatari riyals. The contract provided that it was to be performed and interpreted under Qatari law and that all disputes were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200208/00-7250a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Marshall Lee Miller. M. Melissa Glassman was on the brief. With him on the brief was Thomas B. With her on the brief were Francis A. 18 U.S.C. s 1961 et seq.1 The defendants in this case are Kazakhstan and two of its instrumentalities. Are also plaintiffs in this case. Holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over that New York corporation because World Wide's injuries did not arise out of any act that took place in the District of Colum bia. As to those claims where there was no waiver. We agree with the district court that the act of state doctrine is fatal to World Wide's suit. Because the dismissal of the claims against Nukem was based on a misunderstanding regarding the date upon which World Wide alleges that officials of Nukem and Kazakhstan met in the District of Columbia to conspire against it. We remand those claims to permit the district court to determine whether the facts are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. World Wide submitted a proposal 2 The facts set out in this Part are taken from World Wide's amended complaint and documents incorporated by reference there in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></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="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315884.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While the cruise ship was in the Port of Miami. Six of the crewmembers represented in this action were killed and four were injured.1 Each crewmember's employment agreement with Defendant NCL includes an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs' appeal presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit: whether the crewmembers' employment agreements were shielded from arbitration by the seamen employment contract exemption contained in section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The injured crewmembers are plaintiffappellants in this case along with personal representatives of the decedents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E0CEC479F939D56E88256BF40071A9B2/$file/0055583.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Background Kang is a United States citizen of Korean national origin. Tae Jin Yoon (Yoon) was Kang's supervisor. Lim de Mexico was organized under the laws of Mexico and existed for the sole purpose of assembling parts for televisions and computer monitors for sale to U. U. Lim America was U. Yoon was the VicePresident of U. Yoon also yelled at Cho and threw things at him. 2 There is some dispute as to whether Yoon fired Kang or Kang quit. Lim de Mexico's workers was of Korean descent. 9888 KANG v. He was Chief Executive Officer of both companies and President of U. U. Lim America argued it was not covered by Title VII because it employed fewer than fifteen people.4 We hold that Title VII applies because U. Lim de Mexico were an integrated enterprise which employed a combined total of more than fifteen employees. U. LIM AMERICA INC. 9889 [1] This circuit applies a four part test to determine whether two entities are an integrated enterprise for purposes of Title VII coverage. The four factors are: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-4109.opn.html">BISHOP V. RENO (4/24/2000, NO. 98-4109)<BR></A><BR> Who is serving the foreign sentence in the United States pursuant to treaty transfer. Was convicted by a Bahamian court of conspiracy to possess with intent to supply 1. He was sentenced to a five year term of imprisonment and an $80. To which the United States and the Bahamas are signatories. The DOJ letter specifically states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984109.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is serving the foreign sentence in the United States pursuant to treaty transfer. Was convicted by a Bahamian court of conspiracy to possess with intent to supply 1. He was sentenced to a five year term of imprisonment and an $80. To which the United States and the Bahamas are signatories. The DOJ letter specifically states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1104.html">KANG JOO KWAN V. US<BR></A><BR> For defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-4109.opn.html">BISHOP V. RENO (4/24/2000, NO. 98-4109)<BR></A><BR> Who is serving the foreign sentence in the United States pursuant to treaty transfer. Was convicted by a Bahamian court of conspiracy to possess with intent to supply 1. He was sentenced to a five year term of imprisonment and an $80. To which the United States and the Bahamas are signatories. The DOJ letter specifically states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3089_059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. The path the plaintiffs are pursuing is. Was a member of the junta and was Nigeria's head of state for the last year of the junta's reign. Alleging that he was behind the atrocities. The specific issue which gives rise to this interlocutory appeal is the decision that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA). Does not apply to individuals and thus General Abubakar is not immune from suit. That General Abubakar is entitled to common law immunity for the year that he was head of state. The situation in Nigeria at the time of these events was unstable. A number of military rulers were overthrown. A presidential election was held. The highest governmental body was the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC). It was composed of military officials No. 03 3089 3 and a few civilians. Whoever was the current military ruler was the chairman of the PRC. Plaintiff Hafsat Abiola is the daughter of Nigerian prodemocracy activists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1569.html">TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK V. DONALD EVANS<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1538p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us is the certified question of whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act are applicable to the denial of a promotional opportunity based upon age to an individual working in Philadelphia. Where the promotional opportunity is a position with the foreign corporation outside the United States. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. I. The relevant facts on summary judgment are not disputed. Garland Denty was hired by Smith Kline French. When he was given the title. Is incorporated and headquartered in the United Kingdom. Five new positions were created with SB plc in foreign locations. He was told he would be promoted to one of these positions. He was subsequently denied the promotion allegedly because of his age which. Was fifty two. Denty further contends that these positions were filled with men younger than he. The promotion decisions were made by SB plc executives in England while Denty worked for SBC in Philadelphia. The court specifically ruled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1084.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/99-1438a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Scott L. With him on the briefs were George A. With him on the briefs were David W. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. While we determine that the designation was in compliance with the statute. The Secretary of State is empowered to designate an entity as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1438a.html">NATL CNCL RESISTANCE V. DOS<BR></A><BR> Representative Office.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B9961F8896B700688257203005698B1/$file/0436136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0066p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taveraz </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B0A5C54D54DD337988256B870082F0A5/$file/0115539.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over Glencore Grain's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that the Convention does not eliminate the due process requirement that a federal court have jurisdiction over a defendant's person or property in a suit to confirm a previously issued arbitration award. Among the rights and responsibilities set forth in each contract were the following arbitration and choice of law clauses: 11. The parties to the arbitration shall have the right of appealing against any Award (except on questions of law) within 30 days from the date of Award to the London Rice Brokers' Association. Any payments 4878 arising out of the Award are due to be made within 30 days of the date thereof. .... 14. The Contract shall be deemed to have been made in England and . . . shall be governed in all respects by English Law. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the delivery of rice and was submitted to arbitration before the London Rice Brokers' Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C1E076881480A88882572EB004CB7AE/$file/0456389.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That California order of dismissal was not appealed. Is now final. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. Was scheduled to fly from Bangkok to Los Angeles. Thai Airways employees refused to allow Gupta to board because they determined his United States Visa was invalid. Gupta was unable to fly to Los Angeles on this date and claims he missed a lucrative business meeting. Thai Airways successfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 asserting it was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-20984-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1502.html">AIMCOR V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1145.html">COCHRAN CONSULTING V. UWATEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/03-10994-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74711B584E4B7E5488256E5A00707CB9/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E0165D76CA50A2988256AC4000479AA/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Alvarez is a medical doctor. DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena Salazar ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0174p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that a more convenient forum was in Argentina. Agrium cross appeals the district court's order denying Agrium's motion to file an updated declaration stating that some of its potential witnesses are no longer employed by Agrium. We decline to supplement the record on appeal because the district court's order denying its motion to file the updated declaration was not an abuse of discretion. Duha alleges that he discovered that employees of Agrium's Argentine subsidiary were engaging in bribery and other unsavory practices. Duha was terminated within two days of his comment about prostitution. Defendant Agrium is composed of three entities relevant to this lawsuit. (Agrium) is Canadian. (Agrium US) is American. (ASP) is Argentine. Agrium International (Agrium Int'l) is a strategic business unit of Agrium. Agrium US and ASP are Agrium's wholly owned subsidiaries. Duha alleges that as an Agrium US staff member he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7982BB74320A291F882572AC0077F2EB/$file/0530058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Gary Jackson was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c). I. Factual Background The factual circumstances of this case are undisputed and quite disturbing. Is a United States citizen and retired marine carpenter. All subsequent statutory references are to the 2003 Supplement of the 2000 edition of Title 18 of the United States Code. 1 UNITED STATES v. Funds from this account were then wired to a joint account Jackson and Kleven opened in Phnom Penh. He never returned to the United States before his arrest on the charges that are the subject of this appeal. The three boys were between the ages of ten and fifteen. While the Cambodian charge was pending. Jackson was thereupon expelled from Cambodia. Because Jackson's travel in foreign commerce was complete in 2001. Statutory Background [1] International child sex tourism is a growing problem. Seeking to aid foreign countries that lack effective domestic legal means to prosecute American sex tourists and to deflect foreign criticism that United States citizens are fueling the international sex tourism industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994088.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When Stand was approximately 18. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DAA9CEFEDC07B038825726D00782797/$file/0416387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CHEVRONTEXACO 985 Because these obligations were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff's case was properly removed to the district court. Our second inquiry is whether the federal or state standard for vacating an arbitration award should apply when the parties' agreement contains both an arbitration clause and a general choice of law provision requiring the application of a particular state's law. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041739p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is facing removal to Haiti. Claims that he will be indefinitely detained upon his arrival in Haiti in prisons that are notorious for their brutal and deplorable conditions that have been compared to those existing on slave ships. There is no doubt that the prison conditions that Auguste and others like him may face upon their removal to Haiti are indeed miserable and inhuman. We find that Auguste is not entitled to relief. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. Is a native and citizen of Haiti who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 8. Auguste was convicted of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) in the third degree in Queens County. Auguste argued that he was entitled to a deferral of removal on the grounds that he faces torture in Haiti because. He will be detained by Haitian authorities for an indeterminate amount of time in harsh and intolerable prison conditions. Who have incurred a criminal record while residing in the United States and who have already served their sentences. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-8127.man.html">IRAOLA & CIA V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (11/9/2000, NO. 99-8127)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-8127.man.html">IRAOLA & CIA V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (11/9/2000, NO. 99-8127)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-7181b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rogers argued the cause for appellee The Inter American Development Bank. On the brief were Alexander E. Is not immune from garnishment proceedings under that Act. Concluding that the employer was entitled to immunity under the Act. Appellant was awarded alimony of $1. Kestell was named as a defendant in appellant's complaint in the district court. Appellant was the largest unsecured him all of his assets except one: the future wages that would be owed to him by his employer. Were Kestell's employer a run of the mine private firm located in the District of Columbia. The Bank is not a run of the mine firm. It is an institution that has been designated by executive order for protection as an interna tional organization under the International Organizations Im munities Act (IOIA). The IOIA entitles designated entities to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-7181a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rogers argued the cause for appellee The Inter American Development Bank.* On the brief were Alexander E. Is not immune from garnishment proceedings under that Act. Concluding that the employer was entitled to immunity under the Act. Appellant was awarded alimony of $1. Kestell was named as a defendant in appellant's complaint in the district court. Appellant was the largest unsecured him all of his assets except one: the future wages that would be owed to him by his employer. Were Kestell's employer a run of the mine private firm located in the District of Columbia. The Bank is not a run of the mine firm. It is an institution that has been designated by executive order for protection as an interna tional organization under the International Organizations Im munities Act (IOIA). The IOIA entitles designated entities to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/814C319F3A66E70B8825709F00808502/$file/0250355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. Wired money from the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2223.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribal Court ruled that the Pueblo and the named tribal officials were entitled to sovereign immunity. The district court ruled that the tribal court's decision was entitled to preclusive effect and dismissed the Burrells' case. We hold that the district should not have given preclusive effect or otherwise recognized the tribal court's ruling. They were (1) The following facts are taken from the Burrells' complaint. The Pueblo's consent to the lease was necessary. Was required to contact the United States Department of Interior to initiate such proceedings. <hr> informed that if they conducted a successful farming operation. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044DE357BD726D7288256DF10063BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are legal and social service organizations and two individuals who seek to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4294.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the wife and children of Charles Hegna. An 2 No. 03 4294 American who was murdered during a 1984 terrorist hijacking of a Kuwaiti Airlines flight. The hijacking was undertaken by Hezbollah. The condominiums are currently in the custody of the United States government. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (providing that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. S ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4295.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the decision to enforce a non final tribal court judgment is a matter of discretion. Federal courts will ordinarily err on the side of enforcement of such judgments in the name of comity. We will not enforce a tribal court judgment. The regulatory authority of the tribe is often the issue which looms largest. This case is no exception. These appeals require us to examine the regulatory authority of the Navajo Nation over the activities of a nonmember of the tribe when the regulated entity is another independent sovereign acting in its governmental capacity. Although the district court's judgment was ultimately in their favor. The preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Much of the preliminary injunction is now moot. Defendants are nearly all entitled to sovereign immunity. The specific defendants in that case relevant to these appeals were as follows: San Juan County. SJHSD is a special service district organized pursuant to Utah Code § 17A 2 1304 (1999). Is tasked with providing health care services to the citizens of San Juan County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-2011.htm">99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 01/11/2002<BR></A><BR> Judge <strong>BRISCOE</strong> is filing a concurring opinion. Judge <strong>LUCERO</strong> is filing a concurring opinion by which he joins Parts I. These actions were challenged by the instant declaratory judgment and injunction suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and Local Union No. 1385 of the Western Council of Industrial Workers (the Union) as an intervenor. The Board and the intervening Union brought this appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Pueblo. <p> <center>I</center> <p> The relevant facts are undisputed. San Juan Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in New Mexico. 200 members live on tribal lands that are held in trust by the United States for the Pueblo. The Pueblo is governed by a tribal council. Which is vested with legislative authority over tribal lands. Is described in the District Court's opinion. <em>NLRB v. The ordinance in substance is a so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A188A7C015356BED88257022007EE80F/$file/0250355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).2 1 The MEK is also known as the People's Mojahedin Organization for Iran. The MEK was founded in the 1960's as an Iranian Marxist group seeking to overthrow the regime then ruling Iran. After the Iranian regime fell and was replaced by a clerical. If the indictment is correct. We take it as true that the defendants knew that they were furnishing assistance to a designated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)<BR></A><BR> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11012.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)<BR></A><BR> They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/675DE340D30DFDC788256F6B00586981/$file/0057118.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trademark case. The contest is between a large Mexican grocery chain that has long used the mark. A small American chain that was the first to use the mark in the United States. In a locality where shoppers were familiar with the Mexican mark. The chain was quite successful. Two of the Baja stores were in Tijuana. Douray and Rafid have since controlled the two stores through various limited liability corporations.1 In 1995. Which was after the opening of the Dallos' first store and before the opening of their second. It did nothing about the Dallos' store despite Grupo Gigante's knowledge that the Dallos were using </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1499p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczMjUgcmVtYW5kLnBkZg==/02-7325%20remand.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are barred by the revenue rule. To recover law enforcement costs and tax revenue lost to smuggling are barred by the revenue rule. An opinion issued while plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari in EC I was pending. We have considered Pasquantino v. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs appellants are the European Community ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-2167.opa.html">AKTEPE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aktepe v. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.<p> I. <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.<p> During the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/00-3006a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Scott J. He invoked an exception overriding the dual sovereignty doctrine when one sovereign's prosecution is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5913.man.html">STEVENS V. PREMIER CRUISES (6/22/2000, NO. 98-5913)<BR></A><BR> Who is largely confined to a wheelchair. Was assured that Plaintiff's cabin would be wheelchair accessible. Was required to pay a fee in excess of the advertised price to obtain a purportedly wheelchair accessible cabin.</P> <P> Plaintiff boarded the ship in Florida for her cruise. Plaintiff discovered that her cabin was not. Plaintiff also found that many public areas of the cruise ship were inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Plaintiff was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2502.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Eliot LLP</U> were on brief. Lockhart LLP</U> were on brief. SAB was the wholly owned subsidiary of Swiss American Holding Company. Which in turn was wholly owned by Bank of New York Inter Maritime Bank (IMB). He admitted that the funds deposited at SAB were drug proceeds that he had laundered through shell corporations organized with the help of Peter F. Notice of the impending forfeiture was published in the Antiguan Gazette and the Boston Globe. No competing claims were filed. The banks have been instructed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to freeze all of the assets . . . in issue in your Petition. Until the ultimate beneficial owners have been ascertained to the Government's satisfaction. This is a directive that the banks have to honor on pain of having their licences revoked and is a problem that you may well have to address on the successful conclusion of your litigation.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-2167.opa.html">AKTEPE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aktepe v. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.<p> I. <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.<p> During the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5913.man.html">STEVENS V. PREMIER CRUISES (6/22/2000, NO. 98-5913)<BR></A><BR> Who is largely confined to a wheelchair. Was assured that Plaintiff's cabin would be wheelchair accessible. Was required to pay a fee in excess of the advertised price to obtain a purportedly wheelchair accessible cabin.</P> <P> Plaintiff boarded the ship in Florida for her cruise. Plaintiff discovered that her cabin was not. Plaintiff also found that many public areas of the cruise ship were inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs. Plaintiff was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></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-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/012738P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because it is owned by the government of the People's Republic of China. I A few words about the procedural posture of this case are appropriate at the outset of our discussion. Sopo moved to dismiss BP's action on several grounds soon after an amended complaint was filed in October 2000. So we will not delve into possible disputes of fact brought to our attention in the parties' appellate briefs. In the mid 1990s the amended complaint is not specific BP learned that Nooter Corporation in St. The district court reasoned Sopo was immune from suit in federal court under the FSIA and dismissed BP's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Courts have distinguished between the public and private acts of government. Are not unique to government and could be performed by an individual. A nation is generally immune from suit in another nation's courts in matters arising from its public or sovereign acts. The FSIA endorsed this understanding of sovereign immunity: a foreign sovereign is presumptively immune from suit in federal court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxMzQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5134-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> RSA argues that the dismissal was improper because the district court failed to give proper weight to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-4507.man.html">GALLO-CHAMORRO V. UNITED STATES (11/21/2000, NO. 98-4507)<BR></A><BR> Agreeing with the district court's ruling on both issues we affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-4507.man.html">GALLO-CHAMORRO V. UNITED STATES (11/21/2000, NO. 98-4507)<BR></A><BR> Agreeing with the district court's ruling on both issues we affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5495a.html">BRUNO, ROBERTO SAAVEDRA, ET AL. V. ALBRIGHT, MADELEINE K.<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was Max Stier.</P> <P> Meredith Manning. With her on the brief were Wilma A. </P> <P>Lewis. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the </P> <P>judgment of the district court dismissing an action for judicial </P> <P>review of the decision of the American Consulate in Panama </P> <P>refusing to issue a visa to Roberto Saavedra Bruno. Entitles him to put the government to </P> <P>its proof.</P> <P> I</P> <P> Saavedra is a Bolivian national. Was hired as the company's artistic director and interim </P> <P>manager.</P> <P> In May 1995. Seeking to have Saave </P> <P>dra classified as a managerial employee qualified for an L 1 </P> <P>visa. A month before this was to </P> <P>expire. As is required. He was detained </P> <P>briefly at the border but allowed to enter after an immigra </P> <P>tion hearing had been scheduled. The Consul General reviewed </P> <P>this information along with the classified reports and made a </P> <P>formal determination that Saavedra was ineligible to be ad </P> <P>mitted to the United States under s 212 of the Immigration </P> <P>and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984507.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Gallo was arrested in Bogota. The Colombian Supreme Court held that Law 27 was unconstitutional because it had been sanctioned by a Colombian government official other than the President of Colombia. Of the United States Code does not have an equivalent in Colombia. Is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States. Is punishable as a principal. 3 Pinkerton v. Asserting that it violated the rule of specialty because it was a theory of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984507.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Gallo was arrested in Bogota. The Colombian Supreme Court held that Law 27 was unconstitutional because it had been sanctioned by a Colombian government official other than the President of Colombia. Of the United States Code does not have an equivalent in Colombia. Asserting that it violated the rule of specialty because it was a theory of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042127p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That inquiry will inform our determination as to whether Bagot is correct that Respondents deported him to Guyana illegally. Having been in his father's legal custody at the time the father was naturalized. He is derivatively a United States citizen. Who was in Guyana at the time and had never been to the United States. The District Court was confronted. As we are here. With the difficult question of how to define </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-5495a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Max Stier. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court dismissing an action for judicial review of the decision of the American Consulate in Panama refusing to issue a visa to Roberto Saavedra Bruno. I Saavedra is a Bolivian national. Was hired as the company's artistic director and interim manager. Seeking to have Saave dra classified as a managerial employee qualified for an L 1 visa. A month before this was to expire. As is required. He was detained briefly at the border but allowed to enter after an immigra tion hearing had been scheduled. The Consul General reviewed this information along with the classified reports and made a formal determination that Saavedra was ineligible to be ad mitted to the United States under s 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962167.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating Vice nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands. The Brown Forces were to attempt an amphibious landing at Saros Bay. All confrontations were intended to be simulated attacks. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill. The missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile. The order granting summary judgment also suggested that dismissal probably would have been required under Feres v. Separation of powers is a doctrine to which the courts must adhere even in the absence of an explicit statutory command. Supreme has declared </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984449.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.1 Sinclair argues that the district court erred in concluding that De Jay was not a statutory employer for purposes of the FCRA because it did not employ fifteen employees in the State of Florida. This case is before the court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 1 BACKGROUND This suit arises out of allegations of sexual harassment at De Jay. There is no dispute that De Jay employs more than fifteen employees. DISCUSSION Our starting point is the plain language of the statute. The language of the FCRA is plain and unambiguous. It requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984449.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.1 Sinclair argues that the district court erred in concluding that De Jay was not a statutory employer for purposes of the FCRA because it did not employ fifteen employees in the State of Florida. There is no dispute that De Jay employs more than fifteen employees. This case is before the court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. it employs approximately 100 employees. DISCUSSION Our starting point is the plain language of the statute. The language of the FCRA is plain and unambiguous. It requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other defendants then settled with Goss and are no longer parties to this lawsuit. Goss's claims against TKS were tried to a jury. (5) sufficient evidence does not support the jury's verdict that TKS dumped products onto the United States printing press market that were comparable to the products TKS sold in Japan. Because Goss's claims against TKS were pending at the time Congress repealed the 1916 Act. A typical large printing press system is over 100 feet long. Once a large printing press is installed. It oftentimes is referred to as an installed base. Is so large and expensive. This is often referred to as the installed base advantage. Price is the primary factor. The United States market for large printing press equipment is rather small. Because the market is so compact. Goss was the only domestic manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States. Goss noticed TKS was a major foreign competitor in the United States market. All of these sales were dumped. They were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-4449.man.html">SINCLAIR V. JAY CORP. (3/23/1999, NO. 98-4449)<BR></A><BR> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBE9D4CA0ED1CEF288256D4800728568/$file/0270193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States will not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4170.htm">01-4170 -- U.S. V. WELCH -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR> Johnson were the President and . SLBC's primary purpose was to secure. Utah.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-4449.man.html">SINCLAIR V. JAY CORP. (3/23/1999, NO. 98-4449)<BR></A><BR> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200508/04-5266a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Most of the casualties were Kenyan. The plaintiffs in this case are all Kenyan: victims. The latter provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-5267a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-1030a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alexander C. With him on the brief were Robert H. Manley were on the brief for intervenor. Chief Judge: Aerolineas Argentinas petitions for review of an order of the Department of Transportation (DoT) conditioning the airline's permit to provide air transportation to and from the United States upon its paying into escrow </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1523p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sidali subsequently petitioned the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that there was no probable cause to believe that he was guilty of the crimes for which he was charged. We agree with the government that Sidali may be extradited because the requirement of probable cause was satisfied. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and direct the court to deny Sidali's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While they were in Ankara. Were Sidali. The police examined the balcony door of the living room and discovered that there were two points at which force had been applied with an old screwdriver between the door and the frame. There was an iron sliding bar attached to the glass. The frame into which it should have fit was not in place and could not be found. The doors were locked. Investigators stated that the evidence of tampering was not recent and that the doors did not appear to have been forced. Blood found on Dursun's bed sheet and underwear was Dursun's blood type and not Sidali's. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56C719714DFDA7E2882571C60051018D/$file/0456703.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a senior foreign service officer seeking to avoid exposure to personal liability for an automobile accident that occurred in Russia while he was driving home from work in his personal vehicle. Kent sought certification from the Department of Justice that he was acting KASHIN v. Concluded that Kent was not acting within the scope of employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude in this interlocutory appeal that District of Columbia law governs the question of whether Kent was acting within the scope of employment. We hold that Kent was acting within the scope of employment when he was involved in the automobile accident. Kent was the highest ranking United States representative in that district. He was fully accredited as a diplomat and entitled to the fullest extent of consular immunity. The budget and fiscal officer at the Moscow Embassy informed Kent that the Department of State wished to reduce the expenses of its missions overseas and indicated that the overtime expenses for Kent's personal driver were high due to Kent's late hours at work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954519.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the issue we must decide in this case. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint's well pleaded facts. Is a Honduran subsidiary corporation. Fifty one percent of which is owned by Hondurans. The subsidiary company was incorporated in Honduras in May 1992. Plaintiff companies' contract proposal was to upgrade and establish a modern civil aeronautics program for Honduras. This contract was modified and reaffirmed by the parties in a separate agreement on December 16. Development of necessary programs for the establishment of the data base with the information related with the aircraft to be inspected and that will be under Honduran registry. The equipment will be that which is necessary to manage the data of 100 aircraft and must provide additional equipment each time that the necessities of expansion require it. It is understood that this equipment will be permanently in communication with the principal data base managed in the Offices of the Inspector located in Miami. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/06-7058a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Stephanie K. With him on the brief was Stephen A. Appellants contended that enforcement of the award is required under the Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitration award was made in Colombia and the Consejo de Estado was a competent authority in that country to set aside the award as contrary to the law of Colombia. At the request of the party against whom it is invoked . . . if that party furnishes . . . proof that: . . . [t]he award . . . has been set aside . . . by a competent authority of the country in which. That award was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13065.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PLUMMER (8/11/2000, NO. 99-13065)<BR></A><BR> A United States and Bahamian citizen whose boat allegedly was in possession of over $50. 000 dollars worth of Cuban cigars when it was halted off the Florida coast. Plummer was charged in Count I with attempting to smuggle the cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 and in Count II with unauthorized transportation outside of the United States of merchandise manufactured in Cuba in violation of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Holding that Defendant was not inside United States territorial waters when seized and thus could not be guilty of attempted smuggling. The allegations are straightforward. Count II alleges that Plummer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-1648a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were George A. With him on the briefs was Lawrence W. With him on the brief were Frank W. With him on the brief were Frank W. Both groups have brought petitions for judicial review of their designations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s 1189(b)(1).1 1 Because these separate petitions involve the same statute and similar claims. I The statute before us is unique. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13065.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PLUMMER (8/11/2000, NO. 99-13065)<BR></A><BR> A United States and Bahamian citizen whose boat allegedly was in possession of over $50. 000 dollars worth of Cuban cigars when it was halted off the Florida coast. Plummer was charged in Count I with attempting to smuggle the cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 and in Count II with unauthorized transportation outside of the United States of merchandise manufactured in Cuba in violation of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Holding that Defendant was not inside United States territorial waters when seized and thus could not be guilty of attempted smuggling. The allegations are straightforward. Count II alleges that Plummer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954519.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is the issue we must decide in this case. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint's well pleaded facts. Is a Honduran corporation. Fifty one percent of which is owned by Hondurans. The parent company was incorporated in Honduras in May 1992. Plaintiff companies' contract proposal was to upgrade and establish a modern civil aeronautics program for Honduras. This contract was modified and reaffirmed by the parties in a separate agreement on December 16. Development of necessary Omega Air S de RL is an air carrier intervenor. Omega Air generally supports the position of plaintiffs and claims to be a third party beneficiary of the contract in question. 2 1 programs for the establishment of the data base with the information related with the aircraft to be inspected and that will be under Honduran registry. The equipment will be that which is necessary to manage the data of 100 aircraft and must provide additional equipment each time that the necessities of expansion require it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/honduras.amn.html">HONDURAS AIRCRAFT REGISTRY V. HONDURAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Honduras Aircraft Registry v. That is the issue we must decide in this case. Honduras appeals. <p> We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-12176.man.html">AUTO CARGO V. MIAMI DADE COUNTY (1/8/2001, NO. 99-12176)<BR></A><BR> The question presented is whether the required payment is prohibited by the Import Export Clause of the U.S. The purpose of the facility is to inspect and process. Self propelled vehicle for which export authorization was sought. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from city and county police departments. The Task Force devotes much of its work to reducing the flow of stolen vehicles through the Port.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="434"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-12176.man.html">AUTO CARGO V. MIAMI DADE COUNTY (1/8/2001, NO. 99-12176)<BR></A><BR> The question presented is whether the required payment is prohibited by the Import Export Clause of the U.S. The purpose of the facility is to inspect and process. Self propelled vehicle for which export authorization was sought. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from city and county police departments. The Task Force devotes much of its work to reducing the flow of stolen vehicles through the Port.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-3288.html">PHILLIPS USA, INC. V. ALLFLEX USA, INC.<BR></A><BR> (3) even if the district court should have applied federal res judicata law those requirements were not met. I NJP is an Australian company that manufactures veterinary equipment. Allflex waived the sixty day notice of termination requirement under the contract and the contract was terminated as of May 1. NJP filed a motion to dismiss on the ground the claims against it were barred by res judicata. Amended its ruling and granted Phillips USA additional time 2 Allflex was a defendant in the suit but is not a party to this appeal. to conduct discovery concerning res judicata and to respond to NJP's motion. A court abuses its discretion if it renders a decision that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The parties have filed cross appeals which raise difficult questions about the lawfulness and proper scope of the injunction in light of arguably conflicting federal statutes that. That Puerto Rico's restrictions on delivery were preempted by federal law. That an administrative fine imposed by the Secretary was invalid and unenforceable. The Secretary also makes an alternative argument that the injunction is overbroad. Factual and Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxMzctY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2137-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States was a party to The Hague Protocol of 1955 by virtue of its ratification of Montreal Protocol No. 4 in 1998. We are asked to determine which version of the treaty governing air transportation was in effect between the United States and Belgium on March 9. 2001 the date on which the air carrier's waybill1 in this case was issued. The question presented is whether. The United States was a party to The Hague Protocol of 1955 that amended the Warsaw Convention of 1929.2 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Because we hold that the United States did not become a party to The Hague Protocol until after the Senate consented to the A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-3022.htm">97-3022 -- OMI HOLDINGS INC. V. ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF CANADA -- 06/30/1998<BR></A><BR> Will &. Will &. (OMI) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian brewer. OMI is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Although Labatt is a sophisticated. No one in the company had considered whether the cost of defending the suit was covered under any of the company's numerous insurance policies. <p> OMI notified Zurich Insurance Company. The companies first asserted that Manildra's claims were not covered under the policies issued to Labatt. The district court concluded that the companies were not obligated to defend the case. <p> On appeal. OMI argues that the district court erroneously concluded that the insurance companies<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-7098a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. On the briefs was Steven D. With him on the brief was Eric A. That its failure to respond earlier was due to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxMzctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2137-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States was a party to The Hague Protocol of 1955 by virtue of its ratification of Montreal Protocol No. 4 in 1998. We are asked to determine which version of the treaty governing air transportation was in effect between the United States and Belgium on March 9. 2001 the date on which the air carrier's waybill1 in this case was issued. The question presented is whether. The United States was a party to The Hague Protocol of 1955 that amended the Warsaw Convention of 1929.2 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Because we hold that the United States did not become a party to The Hague Protocol until after the Senate consented to the A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></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-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE95A130436787E088256D2100758176/$file/0157053.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether a federal district court in California can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over 6116 HARRIS RUTSKY & CO. v. England based entities alleged to have interfered with a California corporation's contractual and business relations by their actions in Europe. Dba American Special Risk Insurance Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/013695P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Billy Jo Lara was indicted by the federal government for assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Lara was arrested for public intoxication by Bureau of Indian Affairs police officers. Who is not a member of the Spirit Lake Nation. Lara was charged with five violations of Spirit Lake Tribal Code: violence to a policeman. Lara pled guilty to the first three charged offenses and was sentenced to a jail term of 155 days. The right to be free from multiple prosecutions is limited by the dual sovereignty doctrine. Thus a second prosecution is not for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001006.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented on appeal in this breach of contract action is whether Humility of Mary Health Partners ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E937BE9087E2E7588256EE80057E46E/$file/0271311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Respondent's request for clarification is GRANTED. 2004 is clarified as follows: At slip op. page 8417. ASHCROFT ing and for full relief under CAT are GRANTED. Her petition for asylum is REMANDED for the exercise of discretion. We hold that the Board's denial of withholding and asylum for Rajwinder Kaur cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe that she is a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were lost off the shores of present day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. I. LA GALGA ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-3127a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Before he was apprehended. Was released in February 1993. He was taken into custody in Nigeria by United States authorities and brought to the United States for trial. As the air piracy statute under which he was prosecuted bars sequential prosecutions. As this provision only applies if certain additional jurisdictional re quirements are satisfied. (4) that his trial was fatally tainted by the introduction of evidence relating to the passengers' deaths. That this evidence should have been presented in a separate phase of the trial or. That it should have been presented in a less grisly form. (6) that the district court erred in assessing the restitution he was to pay to his victims as part of his sentence. (7) that the district court may have erred in its orders relating to the disclosure of classified government documents to the defense. The following account of the hijacking was not contested at Rezaq's trial. Rezaq is Palestinian. Was. He was accompanied by two other hijackers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032227p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal questions before us on this appeal are the scope of the exclusion from the Federal Arbitration Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2C1ADF22E30DE0C388256EBC007A3DEB/$file/0271311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Board's denial of withholding and asylum for Rajwinder Kaur cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe that she is a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. He was brought before a magistrate. Who ordered him taken to a hospital where his broken leg was set. He was discharged from custody. Charges against him were withdrawn. He was elected general secretary of this organization in 1991. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/870518214FB0104888256E35007B83BD/$file/0217047.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether Congress has abrogated the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes by statute is a question of statutory interpretation and is reviewed de novo. 890 (1986) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CF0C80C879FF1E388256E6E0059CE0C/$file/0217047.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 4288 KRYSTAL ENERGY CO. v. Assuming </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7157a.html">MCKESSON HBOC, V. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IRAN<BR></A><BR> Jr. argued the cause for appel lant/cross appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7157b.html">MCKESSON HBOC, INC., ET AL., V. IRAN<BR></A><BR> Jr. argued the cause for appel lant/cross appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/02-1262a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></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-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F57B52029863A88257020006E31AD/$file/0216019.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prohibits United States citizens from investing in and trading with Iran.1 The question we face is whether an American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company are covered by the Executive Order and. Whether the guarantees are unenforceable as a result. We conclude that the guarantees were illegal under the Executive Order and. 059 is appended to this opinion in its entirety. All quotations in this account are from the complaint or the guarantees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9625.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ruth Dickie. King knocked on the door and heard a noise that sounded like someone was being dragged across the floor. She was on her back. Her legs were spread. She was bleeding and did not appear to be breathing. Hairs were found clutched 2 in her bloodstained hands and on her left leg. A telephone receiver located near her head was covered with blood. Two of which would have caused her death. Foreign hairs found on Dickie's body were determined to be identical in all microscopic characteristics to hair samples taken from Breard. Hairs found clutched in Dickie's hands were Caucasian hairs microscopically similar to Dickie's own head hair and bore evidence that they had been pulled from her head by the roots. Breard was indicted on charges of attempted rape and capital murder. He was convicted of both charges. Which are parts of the Chapter 153 provisions that govern all habeas proceedings in federal courts. If a habeas petition was filed before April 24. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYxODVfb3BuKElzbGFuZHMgY2xhaW0pLnBkZg==/02-6185_opn(Islands%20claim).pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> See 25 U.S.C. § 177 (2001).3 It is undisputed that 1 The Senecas are joined by Plaintiff Intervenor Appellant the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians. Both entities are recognized as successors in interest to the historic Seneca Nation. The Senecas also allege that an easement they granted in 1954 to the State of New York through the Cattaraugus Reservation was void under the Non Intercourse Act. We dispose of that claim in a separate opinion. 3 The Non Intercourse Act was first passed by Congress in 1790. Was subsequently amended several times. Which is at issue in this litigation. What is disputed is whether New York already had title to the Islands when it ostensibly purchased them from the Senecas. The Non Intercourse Act was amended once more in 1834. Stands codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177. 4 Aboriginal title refers to the Indians' exclusive right to use and occupy lands they have inhabited </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012406.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Second full paragraph the first sentence is deleted. Is replaced with the following: As Sheriff David Kelbie noted in his commentary to the Scottish Court of Sessions's opinion in Donofrio v. A parent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3200203F0C7FC3AF88256FCB007A8815/$file/0273556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 3469 1632.1 We conclude that Minasyan is a derivative citizen of the United States pursuant to that provision. Is thus not subject to removal as a felon convicted of an aggravated offense. First entered the United States with his family when he was eight. He obtained lawful permanent resident status when he was ten. When he was fourteen. Minasyan was arrested on charges of first degree burglary and Under former INA § 321(a). Or (2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents is deceased. Or (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation. If (4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years. (5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971087.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 counsel's name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></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-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1392a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lynn E. Bryant Rogers were on the brief for amici Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations in support of petitioner and reversal of the NLRB's judgment. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Connecticut. The Casino is about an hour's drive from Los Angeles. Of the casino's patrons are nonmembers who come from outside the reservation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-1548.htm">02-1548 -- BENTON V. CAMECO CORPORATION -- 07/23/2004<BR></A><BR> The district court granted Cameco's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Cameco did not have sufficient contacts with Colorado to allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Cameco. Because we agree with the district court that personal jurisdiction is inappropriate in this case. Benton is a Colorado resident who has been engaged in the business of mining. Cameco is a Saskatchewan company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act with its principal offices in Saskatchewan. <p> Between 1988 and 1996. The transactions were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041211P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there was no probable cause for the search of his residence. That his convictions are constitutionally infirm. Paul Police Department was contacted by a mother concerned about a document on her family computer. Dlbch15 added that he would like to see AM if he were going to drive to St. Schaub also discovered that the nickname dlbch15 was linked to the email address dlbch15@prodigy.com. Further investigation revealed that Bach was a registered sex offender because of a 1995 state conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. Involving sex with a fourteen year old boy. 2 3 Initials are used when minors are referenced. The warrant was faxed from Minnesota to Yahoo! in Santa Clara. Inside was a zip disk containing all of the emails preserved in the accounts belonging to AM and Bach (dlbch15@yahoo.com). Among them was one dated August 1. That transmission is the basis for Bach's conviction for receiving child pornography. Below the image was the name of AC. An IP is generated when one computer connects with another through the internet. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We address whether this generic advertising is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013287P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that they were entitled to rescind the reinsurance contracts. I. ReliaStar is a reinsurance company based in Minnesota. ReliaStar was to receive seventy five percent of the net premium collected.2 This variety of risk sharing is known as a quota share arrangement. The formal written reinsurance contract between ReliaStar and Canada Life was not executed until January 30. This is not an uncommon practice in the reinsurance industry. Are known in the industry as retrocessionaires. The coverage they provide is known as retrocessional coverage. Swiss Re's participation was arranged through a company called Reinsurance Management Associates (RMA). Swiss Re was to receive twenty five percent of the net premium collected by Canada Life. IOA Re is also a managing general underwriter. ReliaStar maintains that it deducted the net premium payments to which the retrocessionaires were entitled from the amount of losses billed to them. IOA Re notified ReliaStar that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-7157b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mary Ellen Noone. With him on the briefs were Ralph N. Although the district court may have erred in finding that international law precludes awards of compound interest. McKesson's claim was trans ferred to the newly created Iran United States Claims Tribu nal which. Which governs the resolution of claims against Iran to which the United States government and its instru mentalities are subrogated. That jurisdiction over Iran exists pursuant to the FSIA's exception for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-7157a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mary Ellen Noone. With him on the briefs were Ralph N. Although the district court may have erred in finding that international law precludes awards of compound interest. McKesson's claim was trans ferred to the newly created Iran United States Claims Tribu nal which. Which governs the resolution of claims against Iran to which the United States government and its instru mentalities are subrogated. That jurisdiction over Iran exists pursuant to the FSIA's exception for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/021181p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that CAT claims are cognizable under § 2241. I. Facts and Procedural History Ogbudimkpa is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States in 1982 on a non immigrant student visa. In 1994 Ogbudimkpa was convicted and sentenced on state drug charges and. Return (`refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/998F96BF16F626B18825713000771550/$file/0250084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Other United States Navy and Coast Guard ships were engaged in maritime surveillance of vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Eastern waters of the Pacific off the coasts of Ecuador. The De Wert's helicopter was dispatched to the site of the suspicious activity. The five speedboat crew members and seven crew members of the Gran Tauro were prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The remaining ten Defendants opted for a jury trial and were convicted on all charges. We have jurisdiction. Our reversal is without prejudice to re indictment and retrial because we find that the Government's evidence was sufficient to sustain these Defendants' convictions and that the Government's improper closing argument did not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause's bar to retrial. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 The preferred method of smuggling cocaine from South America to the United States in the Eastern Pacific requires the use of speedboats to transfer and land drugs2 and larger logistical support vessels ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F45AD78B33DB95D988256E5A00707BDC/$file/9935162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051054np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. The primary issue is the choice of law to be used in resolving the dispute. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. ISTIL is chartered in Delaware. The case is rife with allegations of illegal payments to corporate and government officials in Ukraine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Of the Fifth Circuit. Were attempting to rendezvous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/500D5B2B3F1087E0882571F7004E47F0/$file/0456105.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Was surrendered HUYNH v. Among those banks were the three banks party to the instant appeal: Citibank. Claiming that the action was timebarred by the New York statute of limitations governing claims arising from contract and fraud. No other evidence of foreign law was offered before the district court. We must determine whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3950B928228BC39388256CDE00783C63/$file/0171231.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Melkonian timely appealed.1 Because Melkonian was placed in deportation proceedings before April 1. His final order of deportation was issued by the BIA after 1 2984 MELKONIAN v. A refugee is an alien who is unable or unwilling to return to the country of origin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5408a.html">OGLESBY CARL V. US DEPT ARMY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1517a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Constantine G. With him on the brief were David W. With him on the brief were E. The Union claims that: (1) the Mar Ad's decision was arbitrary and capricious. (3) s 9 of the Shipping Act is an unconsti tutional delegation of legislative authority. In all other respects we deny the petition: MEBA did not properly raise its Fifth Amendment argument and s 9 of the Shipping Act is not an unconstitu tional delegation of authority. 000 gross tons or more. (1) Applications for approval of Transfer to foreign regis try and flag ... of Documented Vessels or vessels the last documentation of which was under the laws of the United States and which are of 1. 000 gross tons or more will be evaluated in light of (i) The type. In its decision the MarAd canvassed the arguments put forth in the comments and determined that the following regulatory criteria were relevant to its decision: (1) the general condition of the vessels. Which are used to ship liquified natural gas. Are in good working condition. (2) The agency has previously found the Republic of the Marshall Islands to be an acceptable transferee. (3) The Department of Defense. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-7220a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Szymkowicz was on the brief for appellant. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Mohamed Salem El Hadad is a citizen of Egypt and a former employee of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates located in Washington. After his employment was terminated. Holding that the employment rela tionship between the U.A.E. and El Hadad came within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUyNzItY3YucGRm/05-5272-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) erred in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination on the ground that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not prohibit discriminatory conduct occurring while a plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Is limited to covering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5EEA31263C9366048825705F0055F988/$file/0256818.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: We examine whether a false imprisonment that caused the victim to lose employment and employment opportunities is an injury to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5313a.html">SHERIDAN KLRMA HIST V. CHRISTOPHER WARREN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-1486a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF463AD03739EC2A88257176007884FC/$file/0456231.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Cristobal Rodriguez Benitez was arrested in Venezuela and extradited to the United States. Benitez was tried and convicted of murder. The rights claimed by Benitez pursuant to the extradition treaty are clearly established federal law pursuant to treaty law. Was convicted of murdering a man involved in an altercation with Benitez's brother in San Diego. The Executive Authority of each of the Contracting Parties shall have the power to grant extradition for such crimes upon the receipt of satisfactory assurances that in case of conviction the death penalty or imprisonment for life will not be inflicted. The Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs upon receiving the request to extradite Benitez from the United States contacted the United States Embassy and asked for information related to the sentence Benitez might face if he were eventually convicted in an American court. If murder in the first degree is found. Communicated to the United States that the extradition of Benitez was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></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-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. Definitions of § 2252A's terms are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2256. The section was amended just days before Maxwell's trial. The amendments are of no moment in this case. § 2256. Data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image. Its case relied on establishing that the images were produced by materials that did. The first three grounds are insufficient to warrant reversal. The fourth ground is that the application of § 2252A(a)(5)(B) to the facts of his case amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause. (B) such visual depiction is. Or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Or (D) such visual depiction is advertised. Or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (9) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4142DCC83BE2459288256C1E0002C51F/$file/9956984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline K. Are hereby withdrawn. A dissenting opinion by Judge Kleinfeld are filed simultaneously herewith. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. POWELL 12379 The petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc are. Circuit Judge: Eudene Eunique was denied a passport because she was severely in arrears on her child support payments. She brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that the statute and regulation authorizing that denial were unconstitutional. BACKGROUND When Eunique's marriage was dissolved. Her husband was awarded custody1 of the children. She was ordered to pay child support. By 1998 she was in arrears in an amount over $20. The arrearage continued to grow.2 Despite the fact that she is unable or unwilling to pay her child support obligations. He was designated as primary caretaker. She was able to enter Mexico without a passport. 1 12380 EUNIQUE v. There is no dispute that California has adopted a procedure and that it followed the procedure in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0991p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a final order of the New Jersey district court in a diversity action. Our review is plenary. Was accompanied by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC847243323E2F808825725D005D2DC5/$file/0610473.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Calloway for racketeering and various predicate crimes is pending trial. Defendants are alleged to be members of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></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-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032159.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="380"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE5A957F25DE0CB188256E14005672F7/$file/0135419o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></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-3.gif" ALT="375"></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-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963049.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS Appellant Gentile was involved in a bitter custody fight with his estranged wife. Gentile told Viscome that he needed a bomb because some people were trying to kill him. 1 Harbor's Parks and Recreation Department. Where Gentile's wife was employed as a groundskeeper. The truck Gentile pointed out was the truck his wife always drove. Gentile was unsuccessful in persuading Viscome to plant the bomb and thus attempted to plant the bomb himself. The bomb never detonated but was discovered when two Parks Department employees were in the truck and someone alerted them that something was hanging beneath the truck. Subsequently confirming that it was capable of exploding with lethal force. Gentile and Viscome were arrested. Appellant Gentile was charged with these same offenses. Gentile's § 844(i) Conviction Appellant Gentile contends that the government presented insufficient evidence that the truck under which the bomb was planted was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce for purposes of § 844(i).3 Section 844(i) proscribes damaging. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were Michelle Carniaux and Robert M. With him on the brief was J. With him on the brief was Michael J. With him on the brief were Michael S. Of counsel was Stephen L. These declaratory judgment actions were brought by Sony Electronics. Each of the five plaintiffs (four of which are appellants in this appeal) sued Guardian Media Technologies. Were not infringed by the plaintiffs. The relevant facts are undisputed. The patents describe a system in which users can selectively block the viewing or playing of programs that have particular 2006 1363 2 program classification codes. Both patents were issued on May 29. Both were assigned to Guardian in November 2003. Are using parental rating control technology invented by Peter S. The subject patents are basic to parental control systems and the v chip system in particular and other parental rating control systems and devices. 2000 to have a feature designed to enable viewers to block the display of all programs with a common parental guideline rating. This technology is referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963049.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS Appellant Gentile was involved in a bitter custody fight with his estranged wife. Where Gentile's wife was employed as a groundskeeper. The truck Gentile pointed out was the truck his wife always drove. Gentile was unsuccessful in persuading Viscome to plant the bomb and thus attempted to plant the bomb himself. Gentile told Viscome that he needed a bomb because some people were trying to kill him. 2 1 initially hid but subsequently became nervous and left. The bomb never detonated but was discovered when two Parks Department employees were in the truck and someone alerted them that something was hanging beneath the truck. Subsequently confirming that it was capable of exploding with lethal force. Gentile and Viscome were arrested. Appellant Gentile was charged with these same offenses. Gentile's § 844(i) Conviction Appellant Gentile contends that the government presented insufficient evidence that the truck under which the bomb was planted was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce for purposes of § 844(i).3 Section 844(i) proscribes damaging. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5A836BA1BA84CA488256E5A00707B11/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A809396D0C319EAB88256F09005557ED/$file/0271311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 is amended as follows: 12970 CHEEMA v. Replace with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-3049.man.html">UNITED STATES V. VISCOME (6/26/1998, NO. 96-3049)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellant Gentile was involved in a bitter custody fight with his estranged wife. Where Gentile's wife was employed as a groundskeeper. The truck Gentile pointed out was the truck his wife always drove. Gentile was unsuccessful in persuading Viscome to plant the bomb and thus attempted to plant the bomb himself. Gentile later informed Viscome that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044302p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the BIA's en banc decision and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1968 when he was only 11 years old. He was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in state court in New Jersey. For which he was sentenced to a period of incarceration of three and one half years. An Immigration Judge found him removable and denied his application for section 212(c) hardship relief.1 The IJ Discretionary withholding of removal under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994) is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/00-11152.man.html">FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA V. FULTON COUNTY (2/20/2001, NO. 00-11152)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that a 1997 amendment to Section 18 76 of the Fulton County Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3207_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Frank Bros. is a construction company with its principal place of business in Janesville. Which were funded by capital from both federal and state agencies through the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/973162P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Mark VII) presents three issues on appeal: (1) Did the district court err in holding that the Minnesota Beer Brewers Act did not apply to Guinness Import Company (Guinness) because Guinness was neither a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279a.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI0MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2426-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When this case was previously before this Court. The pertinent allegations were stated in some detail. Bigios had large commercial holdings in Egypt that were wrongfully seized during the Nasser regime because the Bigio family was Jewish. Leased the bottling plant here in issue to a joint venture in which a substantial interest was purchased by the Bigios' former tenant. We found the Act of State doctrine 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 inapplicable because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279b.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/00-11152.man.html">FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA V. FULTON COUNTY (2/20/2001, NO. 00-11152)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that a 1997 amendment to Section 18 76 of the Fulton County Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2ODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7683_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are affiliated corporations which. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-3049.man.html">UNITED STATES V. VISCOME (6/26/1998, NO. 96-3049)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellant Gentile was involved in a bitter custody fight with his estranged wife. Where Gentile's wife was employed as a groundskeeper. The truck Gentile pointed out was the truck his wife always drove. Gentile was unsuccessful in persuading Viscome to plant the bomb and thus attempted to plant the bomb himself. Gentile later informed Viscome that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Mir Aimal Kasi was convicted by a Virginia state court jury of capital murder. Related firearm charges arising out of the slaying of two Central Intelligence Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2494463A20ADD9FB88256DEF005C20C8/$file/0271311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the Board's denial of withholding cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. He was brought before a magistrate. Who ordered him taken to a hospital where his broken leg was set. He was discharged from custody. Charges against him were withdrawn. He was elected general secretary of this CHEEMA v. Cheema was contacted by him by telephone from Pakistan in 1996. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED482DD84D44CDCC88256A3B005ADD5C/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942982.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Florida nitric acid manufacturing The only interest of American Home Assurance in this appeal is that it is among the parties against whom costs were imposed by the arbitral panel. Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service. The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. This caused a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942982.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only interest of American Home Assurance in this appeal is that it is among the parties against whom costs were imposed by the arbitral panel. Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. A tail gas expander is essentially a turbine which generates electricity from waste gasses given off in the nitric acid manufacturing process. Are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Barnard and Burk Group. 4 3 2 providing technical guidance regarding its installation. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service. The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. Parts of the expander were returned to Germany for repair and the piping was modified. The machine was rebuilt again and after further piping modifications. Arguing that the wrecks were caused by Barnard and Burk's poor design and defective piping. That the losses due to the wrecks therefore were not covered by the policy. Arguing inter alia that one of them had to pay for the remaining losses: if Barnard and Burk was at fault for the wrecks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-1137a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adkins were on brief. Were on brief. 2 Peter D. Were on brief for the intervenor. Assuming arguendo that Customs in fact exercised its managements right in implementing the revised At the time this suit was initiated. The Customs Service was a bureau within the Treasury Department. Whereupon it was renamed the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Customs was not obligated to bargain over the NTEU's ground rule proposal. Which are permissive subjects of bargaining. Are not unqualified. (2) procedures which management officials of the agency will observe in exercising any authority under this section. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-2982.man.html">INDUS. RISK INSURERS V. M.A.N. GUTTEHOFFNUNGSHUTTE GMBH(5/22/1998, NO. 94-2982)<BR></A><BR> Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service.</P> <P> The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. Parts of the expander were returned to Germany for repair and the piping was modified. The machine was rebuilt again and after further piping modifications. Arguing that the wrecks were caused by Barnard and Burk's poor design and defective piping. That the losses due to the wrecks therefore were not covered by the policy. Arguing <EM>inter alia</EM> that <EM>one</EM> of them had to pay for the remaining losses: if Barnard and Burk was at fault for the wrecks. Then Barnard and Burk was liable. If Barnard and Burk was not at fault. Then the loss due the wrecks was covered by Nitram's policy with IRI. That MAN GHH was therefore required to indemnify Barnard and Burk for various costs and for lost business. Its claims against IRI were dismissed. IRI was subrogated to Nitram's claims against Barnard and Burk.</P> <P> In April of 1987. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/01-7101b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R It is ORDERED. 2002 is amended as follows: On page 2. With him on the brief was Thomas Fortune Fay. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel payment of post judgment inter est by the United States Treasury Department. Flatow's attempts to collect the judgment were unsuccessful.1 Subsequently. His application was approved. Flatow was required under s 2002(a)(2)(D) of the Victims Protection Act to relinquish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B64E7EDE734558CD88256F9E00000B5C/$file/0471843.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We accordingly issue the writ. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 1566 BACKGROUND This mandamus petition represents one more chapter in a long running dispute over the right to the assets of the estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand E. On one side is a class of plaintiffs who obtained a large judgment in the federal district court in Hawaii against the Marcos estate for human rights violations by the Marcos regime. The judgment included an injunction restraining the estate and its agents or aiders and abettors from transferring any of the estate's assets.2 On the other side is the Republic of the Philippines. Which independently has sought forfeiture of the Marcos estate's assets on the ground that they were stolen by Marcos from the Philippine government and its people. Which was seeking to recover them. Which was not a party to the litigation. Was an agent or aider and abettor of the Estate. The Philippine Supreme Court subsequently held that the assets were forfeited to the Republic of the Philippines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-2982.man.html">INDUS. RISK INSURERS V. M.A.N. GUTTEHOFFNUNGSHUTTE GMBH(5/22/1998, NO. 94-2982)<BR></A><BR> Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service.</P> <P> The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. Parts of the expander were returned to Germany for repair and the piping was modified. The machine was rebuilt again and after further piping modifications. Arguing that the wrecks were caused by Barnard and Burk's poor design and defective piping. That the losses due to the wrecks therefore were not covered by the policy. Arguing <EM>inter alia</EM> that <EM>one</EM> of them had to pay for the remaining losses: if Barnard and Burk was at fault for the wrecks. Then Barnard and Burk was liable. If Barnard and Burk was not at fault. Then the loss due the wrecks was covered by Nitram's policy with IRI. That MAN GHH was therefore required to indemnify Barnard and Burk for various costs and for lost business. Its claims against IRI were dismissed. IRI was subrogated to Nitram's claims against Barnard and Burk.</P> <P> In April of 1987. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7101b.html">STEPHEN M. FLATOW V. ISLAMIC REP OF IRAN<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1958p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a long arm service of process case which requires us. The complaint alleges that Kiekert tortiously interfered with 2 Imo's attempt to sell its wholly owned Italian subsidiary to a French corporation that was one of Kiekert's competitors. The asserted mechanism by which the tort was accomplished was a series of letters sent by Kiekert to the Italian subsidiary and to the New York investmentfirm of C.S. The sale was never consummated because of these threats. Imo contends that personal jurisdiction over Kiekert was proper based upon its contacts with Imo in New Jersey and upon Kiekert's claimed commission of an intentional tort. The effects of which were allegedly felt by Imo in New Jersey. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum. The order of the district court will therefore be affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction is proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></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-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garin</SPAN> were on the brief. Were on the brief. Plaintiffs are active duty members of the military. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3928.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts No. 01 3928 Patrice and Jean Bouvagnet were married in New York City in 1988. Were born in 1995. Until she could earn enough seniority and good will to secure a transfer to Paris. Bouvagnet's application for French citizenship was based on her marriage to Patrice Bouvagnet. Bouvagnet's application for French citizenship was dismissed after she failed to appear for a mandatory meeting with French authorities. Bouvagnet was served with the divorce petition in March 2000 while visiting his children. Trial was set for June 2001. The Illinois proceedings are still pending. The district court took the view that it was required to abstain because three conditions existed: first. State proceedings that were judicial in nature were pending. Bouvagnet the opportunity to present 1 A French court dismissed the case because the Illinois proceedings were ongoing. The dismissal was overturned in October 2001 and the action recently reinstated. Having determined that it was required to abstain under Younger. All of the states and the federal government have enacted legislation to address the problem of child abduction a parent's taking a child from a jurisdiction that has awarded custody rights to the other parent in the hope that a court in another jurisdiction will be more sympa No. 01 3928 5 thetic to the abducting parent's plea for custody. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-4884.opn.html">STONE V. WALL (3/2/1998, NO. 96-4884)<BR></A><BR> We are inclined to vacate and remand. Attorneys' fees in connection with Stone's recovery of custody of the minor child S.P.S. </STRONG></P> <P><STRONG> Plaintiffs are residents of Mississippi. Stone is the parent and natural guardian of S.P.S. He was formerly married to the mother of S.P.S. Defendant Green is a resident of Virginia and is an attorney for Wall and Masterson. Wall is a resident of Florida and is the mother of Lindgren (grandmother of S.P.S.). Masterson is a resident of Colorado and is Wall's daughter (aunt of S.P.S.). </STRONG></P> <P><STRONG> In 1987 Stone and Lindgren were divorced in Virginia. Stone says that he then was informed by his ex wife. That she had been diagnosed with brain cancer and was not expected to live more than six months. Who was the parent and natural guardian of S.P.S. Even if a claim were stated. The motion was denied. </P> <P><U><CENTER></U>II.</CENTER> </P> <P><U>A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Contending that his inability to vote for the President and Vice President of the United States of America on account of his residency in Puerto Rico is a redressable violation of his right to equal protection as a United States citizen. A has raised no argument that would bring the matter outside the usual </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1980p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery 600 Thirteenth Street. Venue is proper pursuant to I.R.C. We will affirm in part. Each of ACM's three partners was created as a subsidiary of a larger entity several days before ACM's formation. Southampton was incorporated under Delaware law on October 24. Kannex Corporation N.V. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-4884.opn.html">STONE V. WALL (3/2/1998, NO. 96-4884)<BR></A><BR> We are inclined to vacate and remand. Attorneys' fees in connection with Stone's recovery of custody of the minor child S.P.S. </STRONG></P> <P><STRONG> Plaintiffs are residents of Mississippi. Stone is the parent and natural guardian of S.P.S. He was formerly married to the mother of S.P.S. Defendant Green is a resident of Virginia and is an attorney for Wall and Masterson. Wall is a resident of Florida and is the mother of Lindgren (grandmother of S.P.S.). Masterson is a resident of Colorado and is Wall's daughter (aunt of S.P.S.). </STRONG></P> <P><STRONG> In 1987 Stone and Lindgren were divorced in Virginia. Stone says that he then was informed by his ex wife. That she had been diagnosed with brain cancer and was not expected to live more than six months. Who was the parent and natural guardian of S.P.S. Even if a claim were stated. The motion was denied. </P> <P><U><CENTER></U>II.</CENTER> </P> <P><U>A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1412.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Varela Fernandez was on brief. Were on brief. It was bound for Japan. I The voyage of the Pacific Swan is part of a modern circumferential trade. Uranium from the United States is sent to Japan to fuel nuclear energy reactors. Which is turned into nuclear fuel (either RepU fuel. The waste is vitrified according to specifications that have been approved by French and Japanese governments and placed in casks that meet criteria set forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. Both the waste and the fuel are returned to Japan on board specially designed ships that meet the standards of the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Even if they are not territorial waters. The case is not moot. Review of entry of summary judgment is de novo. The issues presented are ones of law and our review is plenary. Mayagezanos has refined its argument to a single attack: the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider this action under NEPA and the United States's failure to regulate the passage of such nuclear waste through its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5002a.html">PANAIOT IGNATIEV V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were </P> <P>Wilma A. Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants challenge the </P> <P>dismissal of their tort claims against the federal government. </P> <P>Their suits were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because </P> <P>the challenged omission fell within the discretionary function </P> <P>exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act's waiver of sover </P> <P>eign immunity. Mihay </P> <P>lov was shot and killed. Officers of </P> <P>the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division were </P> <P>dispatched to the Chancery. The altercation was over and Mihaylov was dead.</P> <P> Ignatiev filed an administrative claim under the Federal </P> <P>Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They </P> <P>alleged that the Secret Service was negligent in performing </P> <P>its duty to protect the Chancery. A duty imposed on the </P> <P>United States by treaty and on the Secret Service by statute.</P> <P> The district court dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2 </P> <P>Though the United States' sovereign immunity is waived for </P> <P> </P> <P> 1 28 U.S.C. ss 1346(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33B9A99BF6379DF688256B680003E8FC/$file/9956984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline K. Circuit Judge: Eudene Eunique was denied a passport because she was severely in arrears on her child support payments. She brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that the statute and regulation authorizing that denial were unconstitutional. BACKGROUND When Eunique's marriage was dissolved. Her husband was awarded custody of the children. She was ordered to pay child support. By 1998 she was in arrears in an amount over $20. The arrearage continued to grow.1 Despite the fact that she is unable or unwilling to pay her child support obligations. She was able to enter Mexico without a passport. 2896 Eunique applied for a passport. There is no dispute that California has adopted a procedure and that it followed the procedure in this case. The Secretary of Health and Human Services received that certification and was required by law to transmit it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery.<p> On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA.<p> On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery.<p> Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/01-7101a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Thomas Fortune Fay. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel payment of post judgment inter est by the United States Treasury Department. Flatow's attempts to collect the judgment were unsuccessful.1 Subsequently. His application was approved. Flatow was required under s 2002(a)(2)(D) of the Victims Protection Act to relinquish </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/205F1FE24E4AA82A88256B7300039E0D/$file/0016509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that most of the evidence submitted by Orr in support of her opposition to BOA's motion for summary judgment was inadmissible due to inadequate authentication and hearsay. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND Orr was a service manager for BOA's Incline Village branch in 1992. Joe Bourdeau ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5NjUtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3965-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not credible. Petitioner argues that (1) the IJ erred in finding petitioner not credible with regard to his claim of past persecution and (2) the IJ erred as a matter of law in concluding that petitioner's having fathered two children in China is not itself grounds for a well founded fear of future persecution entitling him to relief. May qualify on that basis alone as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/001823.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This evidence suggested that Appellee was a member of a terrorist organization. Was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had made threats against Attorney General Janet Reno. Were not 3 substantially justified. The EAJA provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CAD9F593BF077CE88256B92000134D2/$file/0016509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby recalled. Is amended. The Hearsay section of the opinion is substantially amended. The district court found that most of the evidence submitted by 5155 Orr in support of her opposition to BOA's motion for summary judgment was inadmissible due to inadequate authentication and hearsay. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND Orr was a service manager for BOA's Incline Village branch in 1992. Joe Bourdeau ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1404.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Daniel L. With him on the brief was James M. With him on the brief were Eric P. With him on the brief were Robert E. The United States and Mittal Steel USA ISG Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/383449778AF3EEC688256DA3007C140B/$file/0335096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we must answer is whether the United States can remove aliens to Somalia. A country that does not have a functioning government to accept them. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. The INS was abolished and its functions transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Sought an order enjoining the INS from removing them to Somalia because there is no government in Somalia to accept them. Petitioners also sought certification of a nationwide habeas and declaratory class composed of all persons in the United States who are subject to orders of removal to Somalia. BACKGROUND There are four named petitioners on appeal: Yusuf Ali Ali. All four were ordered removed from the United States on various dates in 2000 and 2001. Each had been released from INS custody because removal to Somalia </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5017a.pdf">O:\OPN\KATE\KISSINGER\GONZALEZ-VERA V. KISSINGER.V9.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Michael E. Green were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Constitutional Rights in support of appellants. 2 Robert M. With him on the brief were Gregory G. After the release of a report from the United States Department of State suggesting Kissinger was aware of human rights violations committed by the DINA. The plaintiffs argued the case was justiciable and they had stated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-4639.opa.html">COUZADO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Couzado v. Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery.<p> On April 5. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Girard informed Holifield that Customs was out of the operation. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA.<p> On April 6. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery.<p> Upon the plane's arrival in Honduras. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7101a.html">STEPHEN M. FLATOW V. ISLAMIS REPUBLIC OF IRAN<BR></A><BR> Perles argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954639.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Girard was unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the DEA in Guatemala. Was out of the investigation. Girard then contacted Childers and informed him that Customs was no longer involved in the investigation. Although Childers knew that Customs was no longer involved in the controlled delivery. Martin testified that Childers never told him that Customs was out of the investigation and that DEA never contacted him regarding the controlled delivery. So Customs would have to handle the shipment in Miami. Customs was out of the Girard informed Holifield that Nevertheless. Holifield had no knowledge that Martin was the head of security for Belize Air or that he needed to contact Martin regarding the operation. Vital information regarding the logistics of the operation was not communicated between Customs and the DEA. Neither agency informed the flight crew that their plane was being used for a covert controlled drug delivery. Woodhull asked if any cargo was being loaded and was told that cargo was being unloaded only. did not see any cargo placed on the airplane. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04DE16C41C298AA788256DDA00620821/$file/0235268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River will be an extraordinary accomplishment of modern engineering. The project began in 1993 and is being conducted in three phases. The dam is expected to be the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. Rotec is a manufacturer of concrete placement equipment. Negotiations then were conducted for several months. The buyer was listed as the Chinese Resources National Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1574_036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are obliged to view the trial evidence in a light favorable to the government. Who were sometimes referred to by the witnesses in this case as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0522n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant did not have a plea agreement with the prosecution. Inasmuch as Defendant wished to have the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Defendant filed a motion to have the district court sentence Defendant below the then mandatory range provided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-14391.man.html">NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/99-5307e.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED that the petition be denied. This is incorrect. The opinion will not open the courts to a flood of constitutional access to courts claims. If the facts she pleads are correct (this case is here on a motion to dismiss). The Government also alleges that cover ups of the type alleged here are sometimes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-4092.htm">01-4092 -- U.S. V. BAYLES -- 11/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Bayles was unaware of that statute. He further contends that the district court made an erroneous factual finding by (1) rejecting his contention that the guns he possessed were used solely for sporting purposes or lawful collection and therefore (2) denying his request for a reduction in the offense level. <p> We reject Mr. Because the district court's downward departure is not supported by this record. The order is set forth on a preprinted form that contains standard language. <u>See</u> Aplt's App. at 72 76 (Protective Order. The Respondent is prohibited from purchasing. That paragraph is <u>not</u> initialed or checked by the issuing judge. Bayles's possession of firearms while subject to a protective order was a violation of federal law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FDD9F7882F00EBDA88256C76007C48AE/$file/0150459.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Neil is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines who was employed on a cruise ship departing from and returning to an American port. The victim was a 12 year old United States citizen. Neil contends that the United States did not have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime. Is wholly owned by Carnival Cruise Lines. The majority of passengers on the Elation's weekly round trip cruise to Mexico are American. Neil was responsible for cleaning the cabin of a 12 year old girl. Jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Acts of Congress generally do not have extraterritorial application unless Congress clearly so intends. 248 (1991) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5395a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Alyza D. Steven Lieberman was on the brief for amici curiae American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. Paul Kujawsky was on the brief for amici curiae Congressmembers Henry A. With him on the brief were Peter D. Circuit Judge: Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem on October 17. As a child of U.S. citizens who have resided in the United States. He also is a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). The ultimate issue in this appeal is whether § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Entitles Menachem to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A2B3056E9BF02F8488256C08005B8BEB/$file/0135867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are now presented with the question of whether this statute bears the same meaning for an individual deemed inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The answer is yes. We are bound by that framework and thus are not called upon to address the scope of any constitutional claims of an inadmissible alien. We recognize that the result might be different were this a constitutional question. Mean that Lin will be released automatically. On remand Lin will be entitled to supervised release if he can demonstrate that there is no significant likelihood of his removal to China in the reasonably foreseeable future. Lin was never legally admitted to the United States. The United States Coast Guard apprehended him off the coast of Guam on a boat that was being used to smuggle aliens in violation of United States immigration laws. Lin was detained by the INS pending the outcome of removal proceedings. INS 10801 was transferred from the detention facility in Guam to a facility in Seattle. It is disputed how many times the INS attempted to secure travel documents for Lin's return trip to China and how many times he refused to cooperate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/005230.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This matter is before the court on an appeal fr om an order of the district court dated September 30. Allowed the caption of the consolidated cases to be amended to reflect the name change. 2 that the arbitration clauses are valid and that their provisions bind them. We will affirm the district court's order denying the motion to stay the litigation pending arbitration because Bard never owned the claims involved in this litigation and. Disputes regarding them are not subject to the arbitration provisions of either agreement. I. BACKGROUND ACS's coronary stent delivery systems consist of small pieces of stainless steel that are laser cut fr om a tube and affixed to a stent delivery catheter. The FDA approved coronary stent is pre mounted on a catheter that positions the stent in the appropriate region of the blood vessel. The balloon end of the catheter is inflated to expand the stent and place it against the vessel wall. The catheter then is withdrawn. (a) The 1992 Agreement Bard. Which are based on any actions or inaction occurring prior to the date of this Agreement and which the party now owns or holds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1343 U.N.T.S. 49 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief. The district court accepted the defendants' argument that they were not within its jurisdictional reach and thus were not amenable to suit. Are institutions organized under the law of Antigua and Barbuda ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5307e.html">JENNIFER K. HARBURY V. JOHN DEUTCH<BR></A><BR> It is <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1512p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal question we are asked to decide in this appeal is whether federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit between diverse citizens when. Will reverse the district court's decision to the contrary. The London Market Insurers are comprised of underwriting syndicates at Lloyd's of London and companies participating in the London insurance market. Is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in the State of New York. The remaining London Market Insurers are aliens. The policies in question were not issued by a single insurer. Each policy was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3967.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who have been or are now employed at IBP's meat processing plant in Joslin. They appeal from the district court's decision that their claim should have been submitted to the National Labor Relations Board rather than a court. The court shall determine by order whether it is to be so maintained </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we are reversing the grant of summary judgment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021327.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The courts of appeal continue to have jurisdiction to review an amnesty denial. Is otherwise admissible as an immigrant. Whose authorized stay expired before such date or whose unlawful status was known to the Government as of January 1. That they were therefore unlawfully present in the United States on January 1. The INS accordingly requested that the Orqueras submit evidence that they were not legally present as consular employees or family with A 2 visas. Had therefore failed to show that they were in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3770.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which we will refer to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EE48B25DAA0402A88257116000ACBF6/$file/0455036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. 1674 SOSA v. The central question before us is whether DIRECTV is immune from liability under RICO. The signals broadcast from the satellites are electronically scrambled. DIRECTV obtained no information on the uses to which these individuals were putting this equipment. Nor does its satellite technology permit it to determine whether any particular individual is receiving its signal. DIRECTV is prepared to release its claims in return for your agreement to: (1) surrender all illegally modified Access Cards or other satellite signal theft devices in your possession. (2) execute a written statement to the effect that you will not purchase or use illegal signal theft devices to obtain satellite programming in the future. Nor will you have any involvement in the unauthorized reception and use of DIRECTV's satellite television programming. Please be advised that DIRECTV will 1676 SOSA v. Copies of the letters received by the named plaintiffs were lodged with the district court prior to the hearing on DIRECTV's motion to dismiss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975760.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Howard M. With her on the brief was Ellen Durkee. Seidman were on the brief for appellees Safari Club International. The United States is a party to international conventions with Canada and Mexico for the protection of migratory birds. The Reform Act amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so that the statute applies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9383_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sarhank is a corporation existing under the laws of Egypt. Oracle is a Delaware Corporation with its principal office in California. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle established under the laws of the Republic of Cyprus. Which was subsequently extended annually through May 1997. Notified Sarhank that it was exercising its right to terminate. Oracle itself was not a signatory to the Agreement. An international arbitration was commenced before the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration. Oracle objected to the arbitration on the ground that it was not a party to the arbitration because it had not signed the Agreement and therefore had never consented to arbitration. While Oracle's appeal to the Egyptian Supreme Court was pending. We were informed at the oral argument that Systems had paid nothing towards the award. Is currently contesting its liability in the Courts of Egypt. Jurisdiction was 3 premised on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975760.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410234.ord.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. Dissenting from the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: In concluding that there is no cause of action for a claim of cruel. Because I believe this creates a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB0D5F33F83FEA1B88256FB10079DE81/$file/0316556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I The CNMI is a commonwealth government comprised of sixteen islands in the West Pacific.1 Through a Covenant agreement with the United States. The CNMI is under the sovereignty of the United States but retains the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-2642.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SJEKLOCHA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Substantially reduce the sentence because of revelations by the President of the United States that at or around the same time the Government was prosecuting the defendant. The United States was covertly negotiating with Iran for the sale of military armaments. Including the same type weapons that were the subject of this prosecution. The sentencing judge was persuaded to reduce the sentence. While the defendant's direct appeal was pending. A newspaper article quoted the foreman of the jury that convicted the defendant in this case as saying that he would have voted for acquittal had he known of the Government's covert operations in Iran.<p> Following this article. Relying heavily on the jury foreman's statement that he would have acquitted the defendant of all charges had he known of the Iran Contra affair.<p> On appeal. The court concluded that the jury foreman's statement was improperly considered under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962642.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Substantially reduce the sentence because of revelations by the President of the United States that at or around the same time the Government was prosecuting the defendant. The United States was covertly negotiating with Iran for the sale of military armaments. Including the same type weapons that were the subject of this prosecution. The sentencing judge was persuaded to reduce the sentence. While the defendant's direct appeal was pending. A newspaper article quoted the foreman of the jury that convicted the defendant in this case as saying that he would have voted for acquittal had he known of the Government's covert operations in Iran. Relying heavily on the jury foreman's statement that he would have acquitted the defendant of all charges had he known of the Iran Contra affair. The court concluded that the jury foreman's statement was improperly considered under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). While the defendant was a fugitive. The direct appeal from his original conviction was reinstated. He maintained that his sentence was based on materially incorrect information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5760.opn.html">POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead.</P> <P> The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy</P> <P> a. against Salem on the policies: <U>dismissed on personal jurisdiction</U></P> <P> b. against Essex on the policies: <U>dismissed for failure to state a claim</U></P> <P> c. against Salem on the bonus: <U>dismissed on personal jurisdiction</U></P> <P> d. against Essex on the bonus: <U>dismissed for failure to state a claim</U></P> <P>All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-2642.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SJEKLOCHA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Substantially reduce the sentence because of revelations by the President of the United States that at or around the same time the Government was prosecuting the defendant. The United States was covertly negotiating with Iran for the sale of military armaments. Including the same type weapons that were the subject of this prosecution. The sentencing judge was persuaded to reduce the sentence. While the defendant's direct appeal was pending. A newspaper article quoted the foreman of the jury that convicted the defendant in this case as saying that he would have voted for acquittal had he known of the Government's covert operations in Iran.<p> Following this article. Relying heavily on the jury foreman's statement that he would have acquitted the defendant of all charges had he known of the Iran Contra affair.<p> On appeal. The court concluded that the jury foreman's statement was improperly considered under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1296.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Berthelsen</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1633.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief. Was on brief. The second of two successive appeals from a certification of extraditability is within our jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The seeds of this appeal were sown on June 1. Charges were preferred. Howard was apprehended. Who is black. Together with an order of commitment.1 See 18 U.S.C. 3184. 1The magistrate found that all the basic prerequisites to extradition had been fulfilled in that the United States and the U.K. are parties to an extradition treaty. A criminal charge is pending against Howard in the U.K. The charged offense is an extraditable crime under the treaty. The person charged is the same person whom the government wants extradited. An arrest warrant is outstanding. None of these findings are contested on appeal. 3 Howard appealed. Murder was an extraditable offense. Instruments of ratification were exchanged on December 23. APPELLATE JURISDICTION The Supplementary Treaty stipulates that the trier's findings with regard to an article 3(a) defense are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-3190.wpd.html">KASS V. RENO<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 & 2253 and we affirm. Kass was officially transfered to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to serve the remainder of his sentence. Acknowledged that his consent was both voluntary and irrevocable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-3282.html">BANKWEST V. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO. OF MD.<BR></A><BR> Bankwest's president sent letters to the Windsor and Vail banks stating that both banks were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993513.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act (WDA or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Berthelsen</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5760.opn.html">POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead.</P> <P> The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy</P> <P> a. against Salem on the policies: <U>dismissed on personal jurisdiction</U></P> <P> b. against Essex on the policies: <U>dismissed for failure to state a claim</U></P> <P> c. against Salem on the bonus: <U>dismissed on personal jurisdiction</U></P> <P> d. against Essex on the bonus: <U>dismissed for failure to state a claim</U></P> <P>All dismissals are without prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C48384B12A4F727882570F500059764/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 3. That order was not issued by the Judge from whose final orders the appeal is taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C5285F8C8D98ADE88257067004C3F34/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We need only determine whether the provisions have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Baker contends that the district court erred in both overruling his constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8) and refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the law is a required element of a § 922(g)(8) offense. On three separate occasions Baker's various love interests have obtained orders restraining him from committing acts of domestic violence. The first of these orders was entered in September 1996. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043254p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Carrol Morgan is subject to an Order of Removal pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Petitioner contends that she is not removable because she obtained derivative United States citizenship upon her mother's naturalization while her parents allegedly were separated. Because petitioner cannot establish that her parents were legally separated at the time her mother was naturalized. We will deny the petition for review. While the child is under the age of eighteen. The parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child's parents are legally separated. 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3). Petitioner was born in Jamaica in 1968. When petitioner was age sixteen. Her mother was naturalized. Neither petitioner nor her father have ever been naturalized. Petitioner was charged with being an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and therefore subject to removal. Because she was born out of wedlock. She was eligible for derivative citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1432 upon her mother's naturalization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021639.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That six metric tons2 of surplus plutonium will be transferred from Rocky Flats to SRS for long term storage. That it had failed to comply with NEPA procedures prior Plutonium is a highly radioactive. Pits) at the core of modern nuclear weapons are largely composed (at least 93%) of a particular type of plutonium Plutonium 239. We will review the pertinent facts and legal principles governing the NEPA issues presented.5 II. When these requests were denied. 2002. 5 Certain national and local media were Parties in Interest in the district court. That ruling is not at issue in this appeal. That ruling is also not before us. 3 6 HODGES v. Unilaterally announced that a total of 38.2 metric tons of our plutonium was no longer necessary for defense purposes. The use of the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2172.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 20. Carlos Del Valle with whom Ramirez & Ramirez was on brief for appellants. Graffam & Lausell were on brief for appellees. Who are defendant appellants in this case. There are scheduled payments for death or disability. Above those limits a tort action is allowed. It is the fee charged to fund the plan that has given rise to this litigation. 2 A Puerto Rican governmental entity. The fee in question is distinct from the ordinary annual charge made for a motor vehicle registration and license. The fee is designed to cover the cost of compensation paid through the plan and the cost of administering the plan. Each of which is subject to the fee. Trailer Marine is one of a number of companies that is engaged as a common carrier in transporting goods to and from the island of Puerto Rico. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CDDD92B62859EC88825719B00746AE2/$file/0357162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is from a stipulated judgment for $109. We have jurisdiction because the parties reserved the right to appeal the district court's rulings on the applicability of the Original Warsaw Convention and its subsequent amending agreements. Was subrogated to the rights of Viken Electronics. It is undisputed that the Warsaw Convention preempts the state law causes of action. FedEx sought partial summary judgment that its liability was limited as to waybills 3045 and 3137 under the amended version of the Warsaw Convention presently in force between Hong Kong and the United States. FEDERAL EXPRESS tion of value is made when the goods are delivered to the carrier. ... (q) a statement that the transportation is subject to the rules relating to liability established by this convention. FedEx maintained that Continental was barred from pursuing claims for additional waybills. Federal Express will concede that this matter is governed solely by the Original Warsaw Convention. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2218.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nadzo and Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry were on brief for appellee Mid Maine Waste Action Corp. Kandutsch and Verrill & Dana were on brief for appellees Waste Management. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee City of Auburn. Were seeking to monopolize the waste disposal business and otherwise acting in violation of federal and state law. I. THE BACKGROUND This case is one of several in which state and local communities have taken measures to cope with their waste collection responsibilities. Private haulers have been adversely affected and responded with antitrust suits. In this one the history is tangled and the claims numerous. As is customary in reviewing dismissals for failure to state a claim. Non stock corporation to assist in waste disposal. 2 2 The entity Mid Maine Waste Action Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1455.html">ZENITH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/004082P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including confessions that were involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Should have declared a mistrial sua 2 sponte in response to remarks made in the government's closing arguments. We hold that defendants have shown no prejudice to their case resulting from violations of the Vienna Convention. Therefore are entitled to no relief on the basis of those violations. Plutarco Tello were found guilty of (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Sinisterra was found guilty on one count of criminal forfeiture. I. The events leading up to the murder which precipitated defendants' arrests are as follows. He was assisted by Héberth Andres Borja Molina ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> * District Judge. Dirk Kempthorne is substituted for his predecessor Gail Norton as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Dennis Schramm is substituted for his predecessor Mary Martin as the Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve. Including the land where the cross is situated violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Congress enacted a statute directing that the land on which the cross is situated be transferred to a private organization in exchange for a parcel of privately owned land located elsewhere in the Preserve. That land exchange is already in progress and would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve. The issue we address today is whether the land exchange violates the district court's permanent injunction. BACKGROUND1 1 Further background detail is found in the district court's order and our prior opinion on the merits of the Establishment Clause challenge. Both the BLM and the NPS are federal agencies under the Department of the Interior ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is founded 1 The Ho norable D avid D . Castellano claims that he was effectively denied a fair hearing in violation of his due process rights because his counsel was not allowed to make an opening and closing statement at his removal hearing. When he was sixteen years old. I have a 13 on my chin. The tear drop below the corner of my left eye signifies the memory of a friend (called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22B35A3B7A2747D28825725F0053C952/$file/0671671.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a determination by the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) that certain government employees are professionals is an order involving an appropriate collective bargaining unit determination. If it is. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq.1 The National Association of Agriculture Employees (NAAE) is a union that until recently represented federal agricultural inspectors stationed at the nation's borders and ports. NAAE challenges the FLRA's finding that the inspectors are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1565.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Ricardo Ortiz Colon</U> was on brief. The costs of that insurance are far from negligible. He stated that he believes in a free market economy and is opposed to government sponsored social programs. Especially for those who are not indigent. The mandatory life insurance provision is contrary to his political philosophy. He objects to this non incidental expenditure on ideological grounds.</P> <P> The Colegio moved for summary judgment on three grounds: the first two were that the statute of limitations had run and that Romero had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. That there was simply no constitutional issue. The Colegio offered no argument or evidence that mandatory life insurance is germane to the Colegio's purposes. Other than saying that it is a member benefit. We vacate the decision of the district court and remand with instructions.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71928588C713BB218825729E0076C115/$file/0456809.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. The training agreement specifies that CRST will pay for the first two phases of a student's training. WERNER ENTERPRISES 3189 after this one (1) year period shall be at will and may be terminated at any time by either CRST or Employee. . . . 4. If Employee is terminated without Due Cause. Employee is forgiven for the amount due under paragraph 6. Or (2) Employee's employment is terminated for Due Cause. 600.00 will be immediately due and payable by Employee to CRST. ... 6. Informing Werner that both Spencer and Chatman were employed pursuant to contracts with noncompetition clauses that would last another 300 days. CRST learned that Spencer and Chatman had accepted truck driver positions with Werner.2 CRST alleged that Werner's hiring of Spencer and Chatman were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Profession or trade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/985468.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a trade secret case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by BP Chemicals Ltd. The undisputed facts are as follows. FCFC is a publicly traded Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei. FCFC is a subsidiary of a Taiwanese conglomerate known as the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Which is owned by Y.C. FCFC has a contract with JOC under which JOC will fabricate vessels in New Jersey for delivery to FCFC in Taiwan. It is performance of this contract that the instant action seeks to enjoin. The process for soliciting bids was that 4 FCFC's engineering team would prepare a bid package and send it to a purchasing group. That the purchasing group was actually the purchasing group of FPG. There is no evidence that any U.S. vendor received bid packages directly from FCFC. FCFC also has business contacts with the United States that are unrelated to its acetic acid plant project. Lummus is receiving daily faxes from FCFC in Taiwan. These sales were normally made in Taiwan through Taiwanese agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></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-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974397P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Weaselhead is an adult Indian male and an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe of Montana. He is not a member of the Winnebago Tribe domiciled in that state. This relationship was brought to the attention of tribal authorities. Weaselhead was arraigned in Winnebago Tribal Court on charges of sexual assault. Although the tribe was apparently aware that Weaselhead and the girl had engaged in sexual acts on more than one occasion. The indictment only charged conduct alleged to have occurred on March 15. The remaining charges were then dismissed. 100 of which were suspended. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on a charge of engaging in a sexual act with an Indian female juvenile in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 1153 (1997). The tribal court was exercising jurisdiction over the defendant which flowed from a delegation of power from Congress and a subsequent prosecution by the federal government for the same offense is barred by the Fifth Amendment. Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated because the dual prosecution of Weaselhead was undertaken by separate sovereigns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1523a.html">TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, INC., V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> Avakian was on the brief for amici curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5418b.pdf">O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></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-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/023456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brought this action to recover for the wrongful deaths of four Indonesian nationals who were killed in a vehicle accident in Nebraska. 1 and David Kevin McGrath moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the Consul General was not the real party in interest. McGrath was parked on the right shoulder of the exit ramp in a posted no parking zone. Were killed as a result of the accident and the remaining six passengers sustained injuries. Alleging that he was the legal representative of the victims of the accident and that the Iowa Owner's Consent statute. Federal jurisdiction was alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(4). The remedies for wrongful death were limited to the remedies provided by the Iowa legislature. The Consul General would therefore have to qualify to bring the suit under the Iowa wrongful death statute. The substitution was approved by the Nebraska court on January 3. These included whether the Consul General was a real party in interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a). Whether the Consul General was serving as administrator for any estate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-1523a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Avakian was on the brief for amici curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. With him on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief was Richard P. Tradesmen argues in part that its refusal to hire Oakes did not violate the Act because Oakes's activity before the Lorain Board of Building Standards and Appeals was not protected activity. Of particular significance to this case is the ordinance's definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4179.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was held liable for breach of contract. We AFFIRM the district court's judgment because we conclude that the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sporoptic was proper. The parties disagreed about whether the order was cancelled in a timely fashion or whether the cancellation was a breach of contract. The jury found that Orlux did not have a contract with Pro Axess and thus had no liability in this case. Pro Axess has the burden of proving that the court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. A plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1440a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lloyd Benton Miller. With her on the brief were Leonard R. The Board properly rejected the employer's claim to be exempt pursuant to s 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) on the ground that it is an Indian tribe acting in a governmental capacity. To consider the employer's argument that it is entitled to exemption under s 2(2) because the Indian Self Determination Act (ISDA) authorizes it to act as an arm of. Yukon is controlled by a board of directors elected by the tribal councils of the 58 tribes in the region. Yukon argued that it qualified for exemption under s 2(2) both as a political subdivision (because it is an Indian tribe acting in a governmental capacity) and as an arm of the United States (because it operates a federal hospital pursuant to the ISDA). Analysis Yukon advances two arguments for the proposition that its hospital is not subject to the NLRA. Yukon argues that it qualifies under s 2(2) as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/93-1846a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard L. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Basseches and John Townshend Rich were on the briefs for amicus curiae American President Lines. Circuit Judge: In 1993 the United States Mari time Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rivera</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1605.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971914.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bandag contends that it need not bargain with the Union because the decertification election in which the Union prevailed was rendered invalid by various third party threats and harassing acts that occurred during the period before the election. Because we conclude that the Board's decision to certify the Union was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. Its production and maintenance employees have been represented by the Union and its predecessor since 1970. A total of 163 ballots were cast. 3 which were challenged. At which the following facts were developed. Tanner should inform her husband that something was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1295.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Several individuals who were his supervisors at Comm Tract. The district court found that Tamburello's claims are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We will affirm the dismissal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="311"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1132.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for Colour Library Books. Were on brief for The Winston Company. Although the photograph was meant to appear in a coffee table book titled Boston: City of Dreams. It was never published or distributed. Provides information about dining and entertainment in France and is sponsored by the Cooperation Gesellschaft fuer Markendiversifikation mbh. At least 305 copies of various French magazines containing the advertisements were distributed to. At least 183 of these were sold from. Fellow police officers told Noonan that a magazine with a picture of him on the back cover was circulating. As a result of what Noonan felt was an attack on his reputation. Defendant Lintas:Paris is a French corporation. Reynolds Tobacco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/021297p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the propriety of damage awards. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. The suit arises from an arrangement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ1ODZfc28ucGRm/04-4586_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3387.html">RAYBURN F. HESSE V. DEPT. OF STATE<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Thomas H. Hesse from his position was not procedurally flawed. His position required him to have and maintain a Top Secret security clearance. Hesse was given an opportunity to respond to the agency </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0281p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ali Boumelhem was convicted of five violations of. Boumelhem was at the same time convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(e). Asserting that (1) the Fourth Amendment was violated by the government's search of the cargo container in which many of the prohibited articles were found. (2) the previous crime upon which his § 922(g) convictions were based was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCD8811CDE4275E088256E5A00707CB6/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1230a.pdf">O:\OPN\KATE\NTEU V. FLRA\NTEU V. FLRA V13 (FULL COURT).WPD<BR></A><BR> With her on the briefs were Gregory O'Duden and Barbara A. With him on the brief was William R. Chief Judge: The National Treasury Employees Union petitions for review of a decision of the Federal Labor 2 Relations Authority holding the Internal Revenue Service did not have a duty to bargain over the Union's proposed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/04-3023a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. Some eleven years after he was indicted. Who was aware of the charges against him since at least 1994. Assuming the district court's rulings were erroneous. The error was harmless. We assume arguendo that Tchibassa was entitled to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment before he was arrested and brought to this country. In 1990 Brent Swan was working as an aircraft mechanic in Cabinda. PHI was a contractor for Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Ltd. Swan was abducted by three men wearing camouflage uniforms. Swan was taken by his captors to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC)). Where he met a Zairean government official who was accompanied by a number of FLEC officers. From there he was driven to Moanda. Tchibassa was described by one of Swan's captors as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></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-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011938.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was fatally injured on July 18. Motivation had no knowledge that the crane was being shipped to North Carolina. The record is void of any evidence indicating Motivation was even aware that Polar had a North Carolina plant. 1 YATES v. Found that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case was appropriate and denied Motivation's motion to dismiss. That Motivation is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district court. We find that the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Motivation exceeds the limits of due process and is therefore constitutionally impermissible. Whether Motivation's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction is a question of law which we review de novo. It is well established that. Motivation does not separately contest that it is subject to North Carolina's long arm statute. The scope of our inquiry is simply whether North Carolina may. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1553p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was incorporated in Delaware. It </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1193p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When it denied petitioner's representatives access to its property to distribute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1709.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It has become commonplace to observe that the world is getting smaller and that boundary lines between one country and the next have become blurred. One of their more important functions is to allocate litigation among the several national court systems. We have just such a case. Is fighting Hyatt's effort now to hale him into the U.S. courts to resolve some disputes that have arisen. We conclude that the case should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. I Coco is a director and employee of A.T.E. Is a business organized under the laws of England with its principal place of business in London. Is a business organized under the laws of Italy. It was in these capacities that he was approached in 1999 by the English entity Newpenny. Coco unequivocally stated that he was acting merely as an agent of Newpenny. Accordingly was not seeking a commission or broker's fee from Hyatt. Hyatt went ahead solo in the development of what will soon open as the Park Hyatt Milan. Was backed by a later recommendation that he be provided a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/336C069DE1B87AE588256DFA00010810/$file/0256592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called on to decide whether the Iranian trade embargo. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Masood Kalantari is a producer of television programs and a promoter of Iranian cultural events in the United States. He is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/658714DBA9DA5B2088256E5A00707A2F/$file/9955692.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Chelalas are citizens of France who permanently reside in the Congo and are the sole ultimate shareholders of Lidas. Although the IRS was apparently notified a number of times that the Congo was the Chelalas' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/982041.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was pregnant. Have now sued Seip under 42 U.S.C.S 1983. A. Seventeen year old Leah Gruenke was an eleventh grader at Emmaus High School and a member of the varsity swim team. Began to suspect that Leah was pregnant. Seip observed that Leah was often nauseated. Leah's body was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5053a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Dana C. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. We further hold that Lepre's due process challenge is unpersuasive. We affirm the dismiss al of the complaint. Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. His right to compensation is suspended until the refusal or ob struction stops. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0292p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted on 27 counts of a 28 count indictment that charged him with the production. He was ordered to forfeit items and equipment utilized in committing those offenses. Contending that §2251(b) is unconstitutional as applied to him because the government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his alleged activities and interstate or foreign commerce. He told them to take pictures of each other's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B4485DF1F7D251288256AC40003E5EB/$file/9915654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C. were on brief. Plumb & Murray were on brief. Reasoning that the Union's claim failed to satisfy the Lanham Act's jurisdictional requirements because (1) the parties were not competing for the sale of commercial services. (2) Winship's admittedly unauthorized use of the mark was in connection with services offered by the markholder rather than services offered by the infringer. Is also a plaintiff. Two affiliates of Winship (Hillhaven Corp. and First Healthcare Corp.) are codefendants. The difference between the two types of marks is not relevant here. Thus we will apply case law involving either form. Is also postdated. Urges the reader to vote against unionization and warns that union membership will bring significant financial burdens. Accompanies this listing: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F4B8C5C35AAF35A882569EA00621DD7/$file/9955692.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Chelalas are citizens of France who permanently reside in the Congo and are the sole ultimate shareholders of Lidas. Although the IRS was apparently notified a number of times that the Congo was the Chelalas' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2372.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-1421.htm">97-1421 -- UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. V. WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> NYNEX devoted its resources to this early phase of the project with the tacit understanding that if Wharf received the award and both Wharf and NYNEX were comfortable with the relationship and the project. NYNEX would have an opportunity to invest in the communications company or possibly garner an operations and maintenance contract for its efforts. <p> Mark Schneider. UIH is based in Denver. UIH representatives made it clear they were not interested in serving as a consultant on the project for a fee. Would commit their resources in exchange for a right to invest in CNCL if Wharf was awarded the license. In response to UIH overtures that it was interested in obtaining a greater ownership interest. A foreign company is not permitted to own more than 10% in the cable operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1979.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></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-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982164.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which was subsequently approved by the district court. The district court was clearly wrong in finding that the Stupays were entitled to such a large fee award. He was required to notify the Stupays' management company. Al Mashani nor anyone from the Embassy informed the Stupays' management company that the residence was unoccupied. The court denied the Embassy's parallel motion. 2 The record and the parties' arguments here clearly indicate that whether the Embassy was. A party to the lease was a hotly disputed factual issue. Whether the Embassy was actually a party to the lease is irrelevant to the question we must decide. 3 The Stupays originally filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. That lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed and the litigation was reinstituted in federal court. 4 The Embassy claimed that. It was immune from the jurisdiction of both federal and state courts pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Salim AlMashani claimed that he was a diplomatic agent and therefore was immune from the jurisdiction of the federal courts pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></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-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-5356a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was David C. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Quentin Riegel were on the brief for amici curiae Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer. Circuit Judge: The principal question on appeal is whether Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4136.htm">98-4136 -- DIAZ V. FARLEY -- 06/27/2000<BR></A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1452.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William A. Of counsel was Daniel F. Of counsel on the brief were Timothy E. Also of counsel on the brief were Kendall M. A decision that NTT asserts is appealable under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Paul D. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of appellants. 2 Jay Alan Sekulow and James M. Jr. were on the brief of amicus curiae The American Center for Law & Justice supporting appellants. With them on the briefs were Benjamin S. Vladeck were on the brief of amici curiae of fifteen law professors in support of appellee. Berz was on the brief for amici curiae Louise Doswald Beck. Paust was on the brief for amicus curiae International Law and National Security Law Professors in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amici curiae Jenny S. Moltenbrey was on the brief for amici curiae 305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians in support of appellee. Thompson was on the brief for amici curiae Eleven Legal Scholars in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman Al Bahlul in support of appellee. 3 Kurt J. Carter were on the brief for amici curiae Military Law Practitioners and Academicians Kevin J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E76AF88175CB3E0188256A6C00580FDC/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE94C00688637A7688256E5A00707D8C/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3329.html">JAMES A. WHITE, JR., V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we conclude that White must be deemed to have been convicted of ". Therefore correctly concluded th </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1360.html">THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES V. WILLIAM J. CLINTON<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel were <u>Mark A. Also of counsel were <u>Violanda Botet</u>. Again to identify Italy as a nation for which there is reason to believe its nationals or vessels are conducting large scale driftnet fishing. The judgment is affirmed.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC5BB5DB5573A7988256E5A00707B9A/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BFCC98B625BF90588256F3B007B5118/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/88AB5EEB8875CF3888256B21007B0998/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BF74D5945A98CF08825710E007B6D4B/$file/0435307.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seattle's attempt to impose safety regulations pursuant to those provisions was preempted by the PSA. Determining that Seattle's regulatory efforts were preempted by the PSA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Olympic's main pipeline is a 299 mile conduit beginning about fifteen miles from the Washington Canada border. The lateral pipeline at the center of this dispute is Olympic's Seattle Lateral Line ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1116p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court did not have an adequate factual basis for determining whether the claimed exemptions applied to the individual documents. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand this matter for further determinations consistent with principles articulated in this opinion. I. Davin is a graduate history student at the University of Pittsburgh in the field of labor history. The Workers Alliance of America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5356a.html">WISCONSIN PROJECT ON NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL V. U.S. DEPT OF COMMERCE<BR></A><BR> Nelson argued the cause for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs was David C. Argued the cause for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Quentin Riegel were on the brief for amici curiae Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer. Circuit Judge:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The principal question on appeal is whether Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (". Manufacturers of dual use commodities that is. Which set forth exporters' obligations and specify the types of products that are subject to the EAA's requirements.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>15 C.F.R. ss 730 74 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Section 12(c) of the EAA provides that ". License applications under this Act shall be withheld from public disclosure unless the release of such information is determined by the Secretary [of Commerce] to be in the national interest.". Congress has amended the EAA to reinstate its provisions and on each occasion has included a sunset provision specify ing the date on which the EAA will expire.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>50 U.S.C. app. s 2419 (2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The current version of the statute the EAA of 1979 has lapsed six times. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1371p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fauver and Education Commissioner Leo Klagholz (collectively New Jersey or the state) have sued the United States. The State of New Jersey is improperly forced to bear the financial and administrative costs of imprisonment of illegal aliens who are convicted of crimes in New Jersey . . .[as well as the] costs of education of illegal aliens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9547.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner Awa Niang is a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM). <hr> was working in the United States without permission of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (2) on the ground that she was likely to be tortured if returned to Senegal. Much less explained why it was rejected. She was born into the Tukulor Fulani tribe in Senegal in 1970. Her family is Muslim and believes in rigid adherence to certain gender roles and expectations. There was a strict separation between the men and women in her household. Niang was born she was promised in marriage to her cousin Daud. Because she was considered married to Daud. She was not allowed to date other men. Although most Tukulor Fulani girls were subjected to FGM and consummated their marriages when they were 10 to 12 years old. Its responsibilities were divided among three distinct agencies formed within the new Department of Homeland Security. Niang challenges in this appeal were taken prior to this reorganization. We will refer to the relevant government agency as the INS. (2) The Convention Against Torture is formally referred to as The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1526.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government of Taiwan is amenable to suit in the United States only in accordance with the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). [that are] applicable to nations also apply to Taiwan </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026895.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A detainee at the Norfolk Naval Station Brig who was captured as an alleged enemy combatant during ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. The President responded by ordering United States armed forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaida and the governing Taliban regime that was supporting it. Thousands of alleged enemy combatants have been captured by American and allied forces including. Hamdi was initially transferred to Camp X Ray at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. After it came to light that he was born in Louisiana and may not have renounced his American citizenship. Hamdi was brought to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig. His petition claims he was taken into custody in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. Believing that Hamdi's detention is necessary for intelligence gathering efforts. Concluded that the Defender's case was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B0060CC6C9A8FD388256ECB005E36E8/$file/0355785.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To avoid confusion on the part of readers of the various decisions we will continue to refer to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A300D2772152462C8825726500806560/$file/0572761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeks relief from removal arguing that the proceedings before the Immigration Court should have been terminated because the name and title of the issuing officer were not legible on the Notice to Appear ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-1268a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Mark D. With him on the brief was William R. The FLRA found that a firearms training policy change by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1026.html">CERAMICA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-2144.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MACALLISTER (11/16/1998, NO. 97-2144)<BR></A><BR> Was a member of a conspiracy to export cocaine from the United States. Was introduced by telephone to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent John Burns. Agent Burns was based in Jacksonville. Larue was interested in purchasing 5. Was with him. Al was high and MacAllister and others could sell the cocaine very easily. Al and notified him that it was of a high quality and ready to be transported. PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> MacAllister was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to export cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. ISSUE ON APPEAL</CENTER> </P> <P> The issue presented is whether 21 U.S.C. § 963 may be applied extraterritorially. Whether its application to MacAllister's case is appropriate.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-5256a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3272.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lori J. Also on the brief was Peter D. Of counsel were David M. This is an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Stuart P. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Kemba Eneas. Of counsel were John D. Of counsel were Michael J. L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1008a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-4138.htm">98-4138 -- SOMA MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL V. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK -- 12/01/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm the denial of the discovery order. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-7142a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Katherine Birmingham Wilmore. With him on the brief was Knox Bemis. The district court determined that the Ethiopia/Eritrea Claims Commis sion was a more appropriate forum for the plaintiffs' claims. Who was living in Ethiopia at that time. Were Ethiopian citizens of Eritrean descent. Was effectively expropriated when she was expelled from the country because Ethiopian banking regulations permit withdrawal of funds only when an account holder presents a passbook in person at the bank. It also creat ed the Ethiopia/Eritrea Claims Commission: The mandate of the Commission is to decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss. By nationals (including both natural and juridical persons) of one party against the Government of the other party or entities owned and controlled by the other party that are (a) related to the conflict that was the subject of the Framework Agreement. The decisions of the Commission are made by a panel of five arbitrators. Which is based in the Hague. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/00-14723.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA (12/11/2001, NO. 00-14723)<BR></A><BR> Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR> For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984628.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the reference to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972144.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a member of a conspiracy to export cocaine from the United States. Was introduced by telephone to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent John Burns. Agent Burns was based in Jacksonville. Larue was interested in purchasing 5. Was with him. LaRue urged that they conclude the deal quickly because the demand for cocaine in Montréal was high and MacAllister and others could sell the cocaine very easily. MacAllister did not have any further contact with Agent Burns or the other undercover agents. 2 2 1 On March 10. Castenada called LaRue in Montréal and notified him that it was of a high quality and ready to be transported. PROCEDURAL HISTORY MacAllister was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to export cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. ISSUE ON APPEAL 3 The issue presented is whether 21 U.S.C. § 963 may be applied extraterritorially. Whether its application to MacAllister's case is appropriate.3 This is a question of statutory interpretation subject to plenary review. DISCUSSION The general rule is that a conspiracy to violate the criminal laws of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972144.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a member of a conspiracy to export cocaine from the United States. Was introduced by telephone to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent John Burns. Agent Burns was based in Jacksonville. Larue was interested in purchasing 5. Was with him. LaRue urged that they conclude the deal quickly because the demand for cocaine in Montréal was high and MacAllister and others could sell the cocaine very easily. Castenada called LaRue in Montréal and notified him that it was of a high quality and ready to be transported. MacAllister did not have any further contact with Agent Burns or the other undercover agents. 32 1 the border to Burlington. PROCEDURAL HISTORY MacAllister was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to export cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue presented is whether 21 U.S.C. § 963 may be applied extraterritorially. Whether its application to MacAllister's case is appropriate.3 This is a question of statutory interpretation subject to plenary review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981934.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 332 at 34 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-2144.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MACALLISTER (11/16/1998, NO. 97-2144)<BR></A><BR> Was a member of a conspiracy to export cocaine from the United States. Was introduced by telephone to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent John Burns. Agent Burns was based in Jacksonville. Larue was interested in purchasing 5. Was with him. Al was high and MacAllister and others could sell the cocaine very easily. Al and notified him that it was of a high quality and ready to be transported. PROCEDURAL HISTORY</CENTER> </P> <P> MacAllister was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to export cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. ISSUE ON APPEAL</CENTER> </P> <P> The issue presented is whether 21 U.S.C. § 963 may be applied extraterritorially. Whether its application to MacAllister's case is appropriate.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4ODIgQW1lbmRlZCB3IGRpc3NlbnRfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4882%20Amended%20w%20dissent_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhaustion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 question is determinative of the asylum case before us.1 Petitioner Lin Zhong ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981790.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 the Yosts' action was therefore untenable. Christine Yost was injured in an automobile accident on June 23. Her car was struck by a vehicle operated by Dean Allen Miller. Miller was drunk at the time of the accident. Was quickly apprehended. The car Miller was driving (1) was owned by a resident of Pennsylvania. (2) was titled and regularly garaged in that state. (3) was insured by Travelers through a Pennsylvania 1 Johnson v. Travelers suggested that the liability policy limit was $15. Which in the case of West Virginia is $20. Who filed an answer asserting not only that Miller was without fault and that Mrs. Also that recovery was barred by such unlikely defenses as assumption of the risk. Lack of personal jurisdiction.2 Apparently someone on Travelers' side decided the answer went too far because an amended answer was later filed deleting the statute of limitations defense and admitting as fact that Miller had indeed been drunk at the time of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/00-14723.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA (12/11/2001, NO. 00-14723)<BR></A><BR> Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></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-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014723.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.1 Several additional challenges were raised by appellants in their briefs and at oral argument. (4) failing to instruct the jury that alienage is an element of conviction under the Hostage Taking Act which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As they are relevant to the appeal. The following facts were established at trial and during the sentencing proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR> For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4ODJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4882_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhau stion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The question is determinative of the asylum case before us. 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.1 Lin's removal from the United States was first ordered in 1994. Lin had failed to establish that he had been persecuted or was likely to be persecuted by the Chinese government on account of his political opinion. In cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were initiated prior to April 1. We will use the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1056.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The pegs are square. The holes are round. The fit is inexact. The obvious bar to arbitrability is the abecedarian tenet that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if it has not agreed to do so. The facts are not disputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2481.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/992799P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dexter was laid off. Dexter was fifty four years old. Evers was also terminated as a part of the reduction in workforce. His termination was effective May 14. Evers was sixty two years old at the time. Both Evers and Dexter filed suit against Alliant alleging that they were terminated because of their age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></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-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/032388P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is located on the Rosebud Reservation. Was borne out of her relationship with Medearis. 3 2 from the record. Whiting's efforts to find Medearis that evening were unsuccessful.4 The following day. Whiting saw Medearis while she was driving around Mission. As she was familiar with the car's distinctive sound. Like he was going to hit her. Medearis returned to his car. 4 Medearis was on a date with another woman that night. Why he was coming to see her to work things out when he had a hickey on his neck from somebody else. These screams were not only heard by Fred Whiting but also by a neighbor of Fred Whiting's. Donald Bear Robe. 5 Donald Bear Robe did not call the police because he believed what transpired was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby withdrawn and the amended opinion is substituted in its place. The opinion is amended in Part IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0856p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2352.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Some transactions were tape recorded and Ademaj served as a go between in certain transactions. The recorded conversations were conducted in Greek. In that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0902p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These are appeals by five defendants who were convicted under 46 U.S.C. The government's theory at trial was that the vessel was subject to United States jurisdiction because it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1260p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold the Amendment was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Was enacted by Congress in 1895. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that was engaged in the business of taking orders for. Pic A State's operations were designed to avoid the longstanding prohibition on the interstate traffic in lottery tickets by keeping the tickets themselves in the state of origin and transferring only a computer generated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315608.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If a suit is filed in the district court upon any issue that is subject to a written arbitration agreement. Signed an agreement to arbitrate any employment related claims when he was employed as an account manager for defendant RentA Center. He opposed his employer's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that he was a worker in interstate commerce and thus exempt from the mandatory arbitration provisions of the FAA. We hold that since Hill is not a transportation industry worker. He is not exempt from the mandatory arbitration provisions of the FAA. The district court's stay order compelling arbitration of Hill's employment discrimination claims is affirmed. Jurisdiction of Appeal Contrary to the defendant's argument that the district court order is not appealable because it had dismissed Hill's case without prejudice to reinstatement if arbitration was not completed successfully. The order was clearly a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the action was not time barred and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053149p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Following a finding by a Magistrate Judge that he was extraditable. Hoxha filed a petition for habeas corpus that was denied by the District Court. Hoxha argues that he is entitled to habeas relief because (1) the Magistrate Judge should have allowed testimony at the extradition hearing by recanting witnesses. (2) the extradition treaty between Albania and the United States is invalid. (3) he should not be returned to Albania because he will face torture and possible death there. BACKGROUND Krenar Hoxha ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4DB103EF86FEF78988256D5D007C605F/$file/0115491.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OVERVIEW We took this case en banc to clarify the narrow scope of absolute immunity after Supreme Court decisions have taken an approach that is fundamentally inconsistent with the reasoning of our earlier circuit authority involving immunity for family service social workers. We are asked to review a district court order that deferred a ruling. Because we conclude that the order is not appealable. Felt itself bound by our prior circuit law and held that the district court should have dismissed the case on immunity grounds. Where the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority. We hold that Antoine and Kalina effectively overruled Babcock to the extent its reasoning is inconsistent with them and that the district court did not err in ordering limited discovery as to the functions performed by the defendants. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts are not complex. We must accept them as they were set forth in the complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/64C37FB597BF2F848825729C0058BFE8/$file/0615371.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The San Francisco Peaks in the Coconino National Forest in northern Arizona have long standing religious significance to numerous Indian tribes of the American Southwest. The Arizona Snowbowl is a ski area on Humphrey's Peak. Plaintiffs appellants are the Navajo Nation. Defendantsappellees are the United States Forest Service. Humphrey's Peak is the highest point in the state. The Peaks are located within the 1.8 million acres of the Coconino National Forest. A traditional cultural property is one </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7142a.html">HIWOT NEMARIAM, ET AL V. ETHIOPIA<BR></A><BR> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Appellees <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Appeal from the United States District Court <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>for the District of Columbia <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>(No. 00cv01392) <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Donald Francis Donovan argued the cause for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> With him on the briefs was Katherine Birmingham Wilmore. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>W. DeVier Pierson argued the cause for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was Knox Bemis. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Before:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Ginsburg. Chief Judge:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Hiwot Nemariam and others appeal the district court's dismissal of their suit against Ethiopia seeking recovery for property damage they suffered during the border war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The district court determined that the Ethiopia/Eritrea Claims Commis sion was a more appropriate forum for the plaintiffs' claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTA5NjBfc28ucGRm/04-0960_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515088.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One such letter was mailed to American Media. Two wrongful death suits were brought by Maureen Stevens. Alleging that they were the source of the anthrax that killed Mr. Battelle removed the state case to federal court and the two suits were consolidated for discovery purposes. The suit alleged further that the government knew it was utilizing an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1220.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 36. Is vacated. The magistrate judge is free to reduce the amount embargoed to the net award plus anticipated costs and interest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEA68600F890FF99882571E60083AAFE/$file/0416401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeal is made by the several parties dissatisfied with the decision of the district court awarding the funds in dispute to the Class of Human Rights Victims represented by Mariano Pimentel (Pimentel). INC. the Republic) are not indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS Interpleader was begun on September 21. The Merrill Lynch account was found by the district court to have been established in 1972 by a deposit of $2 million by Ferdinand E. Are now held in escrow by the Philippine National Bank. The Republic was made a defendant in the interpleader and successfully asserted its sovereign immunity. The Republic now maintains that it is an indispensable party inasmuch as the Republic asserts that the Arelma assets were acquired by Marcos illegally and never lawfully belonged to him but from the beginning of his acquisition belonged to the Republic. See An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceeding Therefor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E23FC5B9D324AC5888256ADB00077C8F/$file/9956068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Happy contractual relationships are all alike. Every unhappy contractual relationship is unhappy in its own way.1 In this case. Gemplus and Humetrix were poised on the threshold of a promising business opportunity. Garnett trans. 1933). 2 A Smart Card is a credit card sized microprocessor that stores data files. Guistini was a 45% shareholder in Inovaction S.A.R.L. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962770.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Last line of counsel the following information is added: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-5173.htm">99-5173 -- OIL CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION V. CONOCO INC. -- 03/07/2001<BR></A><BR> The district court issued an order explaining that it had not yet made a dispositive ruling on the issue of whether the grievances were arbitrable. That the district court should have decided whether the grievances at issue were arbitrable before submitting them to arbitration. (3) clerical workers. <p> Each agreement contains a management rights clause that sets forth certain functions that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2186EB.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 407 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2005).</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316540.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that the general verdict was irreconcilable with the jury's answers to the nine special interrogatories that were also submitted to the jury. I. BACKGROUND The Florida Civil Rights Act was patterned after Title VII. Florida courts have construed the act in accordance with decisions of federal courts interpreting Title VII. They will not be independently analyzed in this opinion. 2 1 CSC maintains a juvenile correctional facility in Citrus County. She was promoted to Case Manager Supervisor. William Newkirk was promoted to Assistant Facility Administrator at Cypress Creek and became Wilbur's immediate supervisor. She was subjected to a hostile work environment. She was informed that her job would be easier if she would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003164P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the United States The Honorable Michael J. Sitting by designation. 1 District Court for the Western District of Arkansas was not the proper venue for his prosecution. I. Cole befriended a 14 year old girl (we will call her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2082.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fox and Carragher & Fox were on brief for appellees Edward Martin. Because dismissal was on the pleadings. Cautioning that they have yet to be proved. Annette and Joseph DeMauro were married in 1979. Two corporati N was alleged to have a residence in Massachusetts and both corporations had offices in the state. Several states of the United States and various and sundry other locations most of which accounts were established under the names of straws. Shell companies and phony 1 Diversity jurisdict ion was not available because although Joseph is apparently not a New Hampshire resident. Annette and the Martins are New Hampshire residents. The alleged activity was undertaken not by Annette's husband alone. Joseph was finally served with process while appearing involuntarily in New Hampshire state court. The dismissal was based upon the doctrine of abstention established in Burford v. Noting that Annette could replead if and when she can show a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012304.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the arbitration agreement is enforceable and all of Adkins' claims are arbitrable. I. Labor Ready is a temporary employment agency that provides manual day labor to companies throughout the United States. Where they wait on the premises until jobs are assigned to them. A fee of between one and two dollars is deducted. Adkins contends that Labor Ready employees were statutorily entitled to payment for waiting time at Labor Ready's dispatch office. He claims that if this amount of time was added to each employee's workweek. He also alleges that Labor Ready employees were entitled to compensation for the cost of commuting to and from job sites at the prevailing rate of $.35 per mile. Was itself contrary to law. The Policy is contained within an enclosed box on the employment application. INC. is on a day to day basis. That is. I will be deemed to have quit unless and until I request and receive a work assignment at a later date. Harassment or wrongful termination that I believe I have against Labor Ready and all other employment related issues (excluding only claims arising under the National Labor Relations act [sic] or otherwise within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board) will be resolved by arbitration as my sole remedy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1688p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1412p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Hyatt Corporation is the manager of a resort hotel on St. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) (action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) (action between citizens of different states in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the grant of partial summary judgment and abuse of discretion review over the court's transition order. Great Cruz was looking for a company to maximize the economic potential of the resort. Hyatt was reticent to commit the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/92ED1DE1AB69E2FA88256E5A00707CFB/$file/9956068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Happy contractual relationships are all alike. Every unhappy contractual relationship is unhappy in its own way.1 In this case. Gemplus and Humetrix were poised on the threshold of a promising business opportunity. Garnett trans. 1933). 2 A Smart Card is a credit card sized microprocessor that stores data files. Guistini was a 45% shareholder in Inovaction S.A.R.L. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></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-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7187a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the requested contributions are valid under the LMRA. I. The factual history of this contract dispute is cumbersome but essential to a proper understanding of the issues raised on appeal. Its employees were members of local bricklayer unions. The CBA referenced in the 1989 IA was executed in August 1989 (1989 CBA).1 Similarly. The Company was not a member of the Building Trades Employers' Association of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts. The 1989 CBA referenced in the 1989 IA was succeeded by an August 2002 CBA (August 2002 CBA) with the local BAC affiliate in eastern Massachusetts. While the 2000 CBA tied to the 2000 IA was succeeded by a September 2002 CBA (September 2002 CBA).2 Both successor CBAs the August 2002 CBA and the September 2002 CBA contain a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Marc R. Will & Emery. With him on the brief were Dennis J. Both parties are biotechnology companies that are engaged in gene silencing. A cell is exposed to a piece of foreign DNA that is specifically engineered to contain certain portions or copies of the target gene to be silenced. This technology is known as RNA interference ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></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-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1333p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Heinz Italia is the parent corporation of Heinz Dolciaria and. Is a subsidiary of appellee H.J. We have consolidated the appeals for disposition in this opinion. Dayhoff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Heinz Co. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Hershey Foods Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Sperlari s.r.l. are Italian corporations. As the monetary threshold for diversity jurisdiction was met. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Article 21 of the agreement provides that Italian law will govern its interpretation and Article 22 provides that any disputes relating to it will be adjudicated in an arbitration proceeding in Italy: 22. ARBITRATION All controversies arising from the present contract or relating to the same will be definitively settled according to the Reconciliation and Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration tribunal will decide on its competence to decide the matter and on the validity of the arbitration clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="258"></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-2.gif" ALT="258"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hernandez Mayoral with whom Rafael Hernandez Mayoral was on brief for appellants. Cespedes and Ana Matilde Nin were on brief for Welch Food. Peirats with whom Jacabed Rodriguez Coss was on brief for Magna Trading Corp. 1 that it was calling off the corporate marriage because of irreconcilable differences. Our review of the caselaw and circumstances persuades us that only the antitrust claims properly were dismissed. We therefore reverse the summary judgment on the other causes of action. 1 These two related corporations are both in the food distribution business. Factual Background The facts underlying this dispute essentially are undisputed. Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. Welch's international marketing manager initially had suggested internally that R.W. would have to drop the Donald Duck line </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1259.html">ARJUN SINGH V. ANTHONY J. BRAKE<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Sharon E. With her on the brief were <u>Thomas E. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert P. S key findings underlying its conclusion that Singh failed to prove conception of the subject matter of the interference prior to the effective filing date of Brake were unsupported by substantial evidence. We remand for determination of those issues as well.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5042.html">CASA DE CAMBIO COMDIV S.A. DE C.V V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3091a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude we have jurisdiction to consider the</p> <p>interlocutory appeal and grant the motion for summary reversal.I.</p> <p>On January 31. While the Senate was trying President</p> <p>William J. Starr is Weighing</p> <p>Whether to Indict Sitting President.". As is relevant here. I</p> <p>refused to confirm or comment on what Judge Starr or the OIC was</p> <p>thinking or doing.". The declaration was for</p> <p>the purpose of demonstrating that even if the matters disclosed</p> <p>were grand jury material. OIC was not the source of the</p> <p>information in the article.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the foregoing. Abandoned its argument that</p> <p>OIC was not the source of the information disclosed in the New</p> <p>York Times article. It continued to maintain that the information was</p> <p>not protected by Rule 6(e).</p> <p>Troubled by these developments. The Court believes that</p> <p>these matters are best resolved through a single contempt</p> <p>proceeding involving both Mr. There was no factual basis for proceeding with a</p> <p>criminal contempt prosecution against the OIC in connection with</p> <p>the New York Times article. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1482a.html">INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA V. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM<BR></A><BR> With him </p> <p>on the briefs were Roger J. With her on the brief were James V. </p> <p>Mattingly. Miller was on the brief for amicus curiae Ameri </p> <p>can Bankers Association Securities Association.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. Is not good enough. </p> <p> . ICBA says that the Board's construc </p> <p>tion of s 20 imposing only a proportional limit on revenues </p> <p>from ineligible activities is too loose. We have jurisdiction to review under 12 </p> <p>U.S.C. s 1848 (1994). ... retain direct or </p> <p>indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of </p> <p>any company which is not a bank or bank holding </p> <p>company or engage in any activities other than (A) </p> <p>those of banking or of managing or controlling banks </p> <p>and other subsidiaries authorized under [the BHC Act] </p> <p>... (B) those permitted under [section 4(c)(8) of </p> <p>the BHC Act]....</p> <p>The Board is authorized ... to extend the two year </p> <p>period ... for not more than one year at a time ... but </p> <p>no such extensions shall in the aggregate exceed three </p> <p>years.</p> <p>12 U.S.C. s 1843(a) (1994) (emphasis added).</p> <p>Travelers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5016a.html">JOHN H. MCBRYDE V. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CIRCUIT COUNCIL CONDUCT<BR></A><BR> Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Et al.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-2004.htm">00-2004 -- U.S. V. MINJARES-ALVAREZ -- 07/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Which were introduced by the prosecution at his trial. Were coerced. Minjares argues that his statements should have been excluded because he was never informed of his right to consult with the Mexican consulate. Although Minjares did not have a driver's license. He gave Deputy Ruiz his name and told Deputy Ruiz that he was a Mexican citizen without immigration documents. This was because Minjares did not appear to be significantly intoxicated. He was to be arrested in any case. Deputy Ruiz was unsure how to conduct the tests. <p> The sheriff's department notified the United States Border Patrol ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1107.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Joel D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Of counsel were Claudia Burke and William J. With her on the 2brief were Robert E. Of counsel were James C. In which it revised the weighted average dumping margin to 2.59. 04 1107 2 Commerce's methodology for calculating the weighted average dumping margin was controlled by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35). Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA0A2F8B476A6FE688256A95007765C5/$file/9935976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB1BBF996F636D9B882570D60004C895/$file/0117489.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lara was decided April 19. The United States was entitled to intervene. Is withdrawn. An opinion is filed contemporaneously with this order. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied as moot. Circuit Judge: This case concerns whether an Indian tribe can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a person who is not a member of the tribe. Who is an enrolled member of another Indian tribe. Facts This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Who is an Omaha Indian. The offenses are misdemeanors under the Navajo Code. He argued that the tribal court had no jurisdiction over him because he was not a Navajo. Means testified that he is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians and a permanent resident of Porcupine. Means lived on the Navajo Indian Reservation from 1987 to 1997 when he was married to a woman who was a half Navajo. The alleged offenses occurred later when Means was visiting the Navajo reservation. Means testified that the difference between an OglalaSioux and a Navajo is analogous to the difference in nationalities between an American and a French person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/999D1D5B0D734B6088256D6D0078CB88/$file/0115899.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The year was 1994. Domain names were free for the asking. Was doing time for impersonating a bankruptcy lawyer. That was only a minor impediment for a man of Cohen's boundless resource and bounded integrity. Why was this unusual letter being sent via Cohen rather than to Network Solutions directly? It explained: Because we do not have a direct connection to the internet. We have no objections to your use of the domain name sex.com and this letter shall serve as our authorization to the internet registration to transfer sex.com to your corporation.2 Despite the letter's transparent claim that a company called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/704CB7B026F8745188256C1B00599DC5/$file/0017082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5644158508C8CA9088256EEB00779E22/$file/0216305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NEW SENSOR CORP. 10957 We also remand for the district court to consider whether the exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction is appropriate in this case. CE's principal place of business is in Arizona. New Sensor's principal place of business is in New York. CE is the exclusive United States distributor of Jensen speakers. Which are manufactured in Italy by Sica Altoparlanti (SICA). New Sensor was aware of CE's exclusive distributorship. Which is also based in Arizona. Complicating matters between the companies was the assignment of a trademark for electron tubes to New Sensor by the former exclusive distributor of the tubes. New Sensor's assigned trademark was from Svetlana Electron Devices. CE does not assert that general personal jurisdiction over New Sensor existed. 3 The district court's ruling was made before we decided Harris Rutsky. 2 10960 CE DISTRIBUTION v. B. Intentional Tort Claim (Interference With Distributor Agreement) [3] When an intentional tort claim is asserted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$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-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C06C2A185E7373388256E5A00707C06/$file/9935976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F241E6EF9CAD5988257015004E3218/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36E30382FA43D72488256D65007EC833/$file/0035457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allege that they were subject to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is not the employer of Washington's Law Against Discrimination tracks federal law. Thus our analysis will cite only federal law. PMA is a non profit association of the stevedoring and shipping companies that do employ the Plaintiffs. Holding that PMA could not be liable for discrimination because PMA was not the Plaintiffs' employer. I A The Plaintiffs are all African American. They allege that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment while employed on the waterfront in Seattle and Tacoma. The Plaintiffs allege that they have been referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/282E5BB838EF83458825733800727415/$file/0575850.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Petitioner Juan Elias Estrada Espinoza is a native and citizen of Mexico. Estrada Espinoza was 20 years old and Arredondo was either 15 or 16 years old. EstradaEspinoza claims that Arredondo and her friends told him she was 18 at the time of their meeting. Estrada Espinoza was convicted on four counts. It is unclear from the record how he pled or whether there was a trial. As that term is defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Which found that § 261.5(c) was a crime of violence and hence an aggravated felony. (The IJ recognized that Estrada Espinoza was being removed for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/951107P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) the State of Minnesota was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking to have a tribal judgment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals declared null and void. The bank now argues that the tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over the Longs' discrimination claim and that it was denied due process by the tribal proceedings. I. The Long Company is a family farming and ranching business incorporated under the laws of South Dakota and located on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Who are both enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe). Who was not a tribal member. The parties disagree about whether his shares were distributed to Ronnie Long. 2 but it is undisputed that the Longs have majority ownership of the company. In his will Kenneth purported to devise his interest in the company and his land on the reservation to his four children. Noting that it has filed a creditor's claim against the estate and asserting that Kenneth's interest in the company was never distributed by the probate court. The estate was still in probate at the time of the district court judgement. 22 1 The bank is a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business outside the reservation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/021897P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Heriberto Gonzales was indicted in the United States District Court1 for conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Gonzales pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. I. Background Gonzales is a Mexican national whose native language is Spanish. New counsel was appointed to represent Gonzales pursuant to his request. Gonzales was sentenced to 151 months in prison. The record reveals that interpreters were used at many of the court proceedings. United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 2 1 by the district court was a certified Spanish language interpreter.2 There is no record regarding the availability of certified interpreters at the time of Gonzales's proceedings. Court Interpreters Act It is well settled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/004006P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court is affirmed. Which NECA had already negotiated and which was effective through May 31. NECA is an association that represents electrical contractors and negotiates collective bargaining agreements on their behalf. 2 2 1 work distribution regime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001615P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sentenced to thirty three months in prison and two years of supervised release after his conviction by a jury on five counts stemming from his production and sale of false identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028.1 He appeals both his conviction and his sentence. Santos was arrested on April 15. Where Santos and another man were actively engaged in the production of a variety of false identification documents. Particularly noteworthy were an operating typewriter containing a freshly minted false social security card. Santos was read his Miranda rights in Spanish by a Spanish speaking police officer and confessed to making false identification cards. He was not. Informed of his right as a Mexican national to have the Mexican consulate notified pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations until April 19. Santos argued that he was a victim of circumstances who happened to be in an apartment where illegal acts were taking place but who was not participating in them. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires authorities to inform detained or arrested foreign nationals that they may have their consulates notified of their status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4233.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Parolee Gregory Williams wants to go to the Philippines to marry a woman with whom he began corresponding while he was incarcerated. That the State of Wisconsin and various parole officials are violating his rights to travel and marry by refusing to let him take this trip. We therefore affirm. 2 I No. 02 4233 In 1991 Williams was convicted by a Wisconsin state court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Six years after he was incarcerated. The pair eventually agreed to marry (the record again is silent on the date). Williams was paroled. His decision was upheld by various parole administrators. We pause to consider whether this case was properly brought under § 1983. Or if it should have been presented as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We thus must also consider whether we have any responsibility to do anything but evaluate the claim as presented. The short answer to the first question is that. The case should have been brought as a § 2254 action. We consider it so clear that the underlying legal point Williams is making is without merit that we see no reason to do anything but to affirm the district court's dismissal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2080.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klinzing argues first that the DPPA is an unconstitutional exercise of the federal commerce power. Pamela gained full custody of their sons and Klinzing was ordered by the court to pay child support until the boys reached adulthood. Rule 803(6) permits introduction of business records without foundation testimony from the record custodian so long as the records are authenticated according to FED. 1 punishes the willful nonpayment of past 1 For the purpose of this appeal there is no meaningful difference between the earlier CSRA and later DPPA. The sole purpose of the legislation is to assist states in recovering past due child support payments beyond their borders. (...continued) sake we will refer to the statute only as the DPPA. Since then several circuits have reconsidered the issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Klinzing still claims that the DPPA is unconstitutional. Because we agree with our analysis in Black that an interstate child support obligation is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3779_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That motion was denied. Facts Spamhaus is a non profit company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is an internet watchdog group in the business of identifying and blocking internet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3451_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal presents another variation on the question whether taxpayers have standing to challenge a governmental action that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause an issue that arises with some regularity. Each of these cases addresses challenging issues in an area of law in which the law is by no means clear. The taxpayers' target is a federal statute. Plaintiff Eugene Winkler and others (to whom we refer collectively as Winkler) sued the Secretary of Defense claiming that the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause because it requires the government to support an organization BSA that conditions membership upon a belief in God and thus that excludes believers in religions that are not based on one or more Deities. The district court ruled that standing was proper. It then found that BSA is a religious organization and that the direct public subsidy of the Jamborees violated the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Winkler does not have standing to challenge the Jamboree statute. There are three elements of Article III standing: injury in fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0378p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the cooperatives ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0274p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doing so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055051np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. I. Daud was born in Pakistan on March 20. Daud was served with a Notice to Appear by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss Fasano's Complaint. Federal Reserve Banks Because the nature of Federal Reserve Banks is at issue in this case. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053288p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand. I. Appellee Sandy Lane Hotel Company is a Barbados corporation. Its sole business is the operation of the Sandy Lane Hotel in St. The O'Connors also argued that Sandy Lane is subject to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. App. 304 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053141p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Vasiliy Ostapovich Romanishyn was born in Ukraine on July 14. Romanishyn was convicted twice for burglary in violation of 18 PA. He was sentenced to 3 incarceration and served for a period of 8 23 months. He was sentenced to incarceration and served for a period of 4 12 months. Romanishyn was subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (as an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (as an alien who had been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Romanishyn claimed that he feared he would be persecuted because he is a Baptist. If he were sent back to Ukraine. He was not eligible to apply for asylum because the offenses for which he had been convicted were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044333p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 exists for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Or electronic communication is intercepted. Specifically at issue are default judgments entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Appellees. Who are alleged by Appellant DIRECTV. Inc. to have pirated its encrypted satellite television broadcasts. We have jurisdiction to review the final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 For the following reasons. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court that no private right of action exists under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) for violations of 18 DIRECTV did not immediately appeal the Order as to defendant Keal in DeCroce. Was compelled by Fed. Because no final order existed until the last defendant was dismissed. We conclude that the appeal was timely filed. That there is no jurisdictional defect. 2 1 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) where the defendant has. Are variously known as unloopers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043607p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Introduction Petitioner's father was killed in cold blood. The 2 government concedes that he is dead. That murder and what preceded and followed it is the event on which her application for asylum. Relief under the Convention Against Torture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4MTRfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4814_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vacated and remanded in part. * The Clerk is requested to modify the official caption to reflect the correct order of Cao's name. The pivotal issue is petitioner's credibility. We will not reject the IJ's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. That is. It is true in most cases that a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to reach an opposite conclusion.1 However. We do not ordinarily deny the petition for review because we cannot determine whether the IJ would have reached the same conclusion had she not erred. Implicit in the rationale for remanding when an adjudicatory error leaves us uncertain as to whether the IJ or BIA would have reached the same conclusion absent the identified error or errors. Is the corollary proposition that we will deny the petition for review rather than remand where (1) the adjudicator explicitly rested its conclusion on alternative grounds. One of which is sustainable. That there is no realistic possibility of a different result on remand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612468.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lobo was paired with an assistant to complete the task of cleaning each passenger cabin aboard ship. Lobo sued in federal court to enforce the payment of wages under the collective bargaining agreement which provided that passenger gratuities are included as part of a stateroom attendant's pay. Lobo responded that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it conflicted with both the Seaman's Wage Act which gives seamen the right to access federal courts to resolve wage disputes. The Court considered whether the provisions of the Seaman's Wage Act were displaced by the subsequent enactment of the Labor Management Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954419.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2333.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cuprill</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2384.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eda\'s wife and daughters were included in his asylum\ application.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote3 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Both the Narragansetts and the State of Rhode Island filed suits disputing the issue of whether the Tribe's operation of a smoke shop and sale of cigarettes on the Tribe's settlement lands are exempt from the application and enforcement of Rhode Island's cigarette tax laws. The State initially filed its complaint in Rhode Island state court and the Narragansetts removed the case to federal district court in an attempt to have it decided together with the Tribe's complaint. Which was brought in federal district court. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the state case and remanded it to the state court. We are asked whether the district court could exercize jurisdiction over the State's complaint. 6 7 (1st Cir. 1997).</P> <P> The Narragansett Indian Tribe is a federally recognized </P> <P>Indian tribe located in the State of Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1231.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was awarded custody of their three minor children. Lewko was ordered to pay all household expenses. The child support order was amended to $65 per week. Although the August 1997 finding was purged after Lewko made a lump sum payment. Lewko was incarcerated twelve days for contempt and ordered to pay $2. This payment was made by church members on his behalf. Lewko was ordered to appear for another contempt hearing for his ongoing failure to make support payments. Lewko reneged on this promise.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1018.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></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-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/021770p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the two year state limitations period does apply to KingVision's FCA claims because the Pennsylvania piracy statute is directly analogous to § 553 of the FCA and neither 1 the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-5065a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. We conclude the district court properly exempted the draft document from release under FOIA Exemption 5 and properly found the document was not part of a system of records subject to disclosure under the Privacy Act. The name of the alleged victim is not subject to release as a segregable fact. Arturo Giron was Peace Corps Country Director for the Kingdom of Tonga. Was 18 or 19 years old and appeared to have been under 18 at the time of the incident. 3 Giron consulted the Peace Corps Manual and contacted the General Counsel's office for advice. Horowitz remembered the incident but explained that the encounter was consensual and assured Giron the student had been 18 years old at the time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-3018a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Robert Rigsby. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Maddox was convicted at the second trial. His conviction was reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The jury found him not guilty at the third trial.2 After the reversal of Maddox's 1 Appellant Michelle Elzie is the warden of the District of Columbia's Central Detention Facility. 2 The charges stemmed from Maddox's arrest on April 9. Maddox argued that the trial prosecutor's appearance at the revoca tion hearing was in retaliation for Maddox's exercise of his statutory right to appeal and his constitutional right to a jury trial. That there was actual vindictive ness. One count was dis missed. Maddox was tried for one count of possession of PCP with intent to distribute. Maddox was tried for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Maddox was retried on the single count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 3 In 1981. Maddox was sentenced to 26 years imprisonment by the D.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-1482a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roger J. With her on the brief were James V. Miller was on the brief for amicus curiae Ameri can Bankers Association Securities Association. Is not good enough. ICBA says that the Board's construc tion of s 20 imposing only a proportional limit on revenues from ineligible activities is too loose. We have jurisdiction to review under 12 U.S.C. s 1848 (1994). ... retain direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company or engage in any activities other than (A) those of banking or of managing or controlling banks and other subsidiaries authorized under [the BHC Act] ... The Board is authorized ... to extend the two year period ... for not more than one year at a time ... but no such extensions shall in the aggregate exceed three years. 12 U.S.C. s 1843(a) (1994) (emphasis added). Was engaged in various activities. ICBA offers a series of arguments de signed to prove that this literal compliance with s 4(a)(2) is inadequate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994901.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 4901 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Zhang was not advised that he could remain silent. Nor was he informed that any statement made could be used against him. He also was not informed that he could request the assistance of an attorney. While this appeal was pending. Sets forth the proper standard for determining whether a confession by a person in custody is voluntary. Zhang's referral to secondary inspection for further questioning did not amount to custody such that his statements made without the benefit of a recitation of his rights should have been suppressed. 1119 20 (11th Cir. 1996) (recognizing strong governmental interest in patrolling national borders and finding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984844.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Doe contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish that she committed fraud by stating that a lottery petition was hers and by submitting documents supporting her assertion that she was the person named in the lottery petition. A guilty verdict must be upheld </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981332.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 the comma after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-8029.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> This appeal arises under two rarely invoked statutes. Aragon for alleged sexual offenses committed in this country while she was under 16. It held that (1) it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the ATS claims because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6129.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties are familiar with the facts. We will not restate them here. 28 U.S.C. 1915A acts as a barrier to a prisoner's suit if it is frivolous. Gonzales be substituted for John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. (2) This order is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> court found. Alvarez's claim fails for one basic reason: the compensation benefits provided for by 18 U.S.C. 4126(c)(4) constitute the exclusive remedy for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1391.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were unconstitutionally prohibited from protesting in the traditional public forums surrounding the Broadmoor Hotel (Broadmoor) in Colorado Springs. Approximately (1) NATO is the popular acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Which is located across the street. The perimeter was roughly defined by five checkpoints at roadway intersections surrounding the Broadmoor property. The security zone was completely closed to all persons except conference attendees. The task force's primary security concern was the threat of a terrorist attack utilizing explosives. Broadmoor employees were bused into the zone from an off site staging area. They were pre screened by metal detectors and scanners. Several hundred members of the national and international media were allowed into the security zone. Members of the media were pre screened at an off site staging area (the World Arena) and bused into the Broadmoor. Members of the media were restricted to an area around the International Conference Center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA2NTMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0653-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Martinez was tried before a jury on three counts: Count One charged conspiracy to commit 2 murder for hire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0322n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arrested shortly before the search warrant was executed as he and Jose Bustos were leaving the Aguilar residence in a third party's vehicle. Diaz was charged in a multiple count indictment with the illegal possession and distribution of cocaine. Which were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023756P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a case about the taxability of business and entertainment expenses spent on a Canadian fishing trip. After the Internal Revenue Service determined that the per employee cost of Townsend Industries' annual fishing trip was wages. Sitting by designation. 1 expenses involved in the trips were employee wages within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. Ruled that a portion of these wages should have been withheld for income tax and Social Security and Medicare taxes. Business discussions were conducted on an on going basis during the trip. The District Court's holding that Townsend failed to establish that its trips had a business purpose is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. 469 U.S. at 249 n.8 (explaining that presence of elements constituting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-8079.htm">97-8079 -- ORDINANCE 59 ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES DEPT.OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY -- 12/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/033165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arrested and indicted for traveling from his United States residence in Florida to Iowa to commit criminal sexual activity with a 13 year old girl Abad met in an Internet chat room for 13 and 14 year olds. To show Abad is a danger to the community and (2) met its burden. To show Abad is a flight risk. Abad was arrested and later was indicted for interstate travel with intent to commit criminal sexual activity with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(b). The Pretrial Report and the hearing evidence revealed the following: (1) Abad is a 26 year old unmarried Philippine citizen who has no children and resides with his parents in Hialeah. (2) Abad is well educated and. Was working as a registered nurse in Miami Children's Hospital. Abad admitted he knew the Iowa girl was 13 years old. Several members of Abad's family were present. Although the magistrate judge found there was probable cause to believe Abad committed the offense. Remarked at the hearing that the government's case against Abad was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-2197.htm">97-2197 -- U.S. V. DOMINGUEZ-CARMONA -- 01/04/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendants argue that the government's appeals are moot because they have served their sentences and been deported to Mexico. Concluding that the appeals are not moot and that the sentences the district court imposed are plainly contrary to the sentencing guidelines. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-5216.htm">97-5216 -- BOYD ROSENE AND ASSOCIATES INC. V. KANSAS MUNICIPAL GAS AGENCY -- 04/13/1999<BR></A><BR> 936 was inappropriate. The district court's award of attorney's fees is <strong>Reversed</strong>.<strong></strong> <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1278.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for Health Industry Manufacturers Association. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975812.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. Because no members of the plaintiff class are illegal aliens. We will for convenience use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-2033.htm">98-2033 -- HEMSING V. PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS -- 07/09/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Darline Hemsing (Hemsing). Was employed by Philips as an occupational health nurse and supervisor of its in house health services unit from May. When her employment was terminated. Hemsing claims that she was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). 12101 <em>et. seq.</em> Hemsing alleges that she became disabled in the 1970's when she was involved in two separate vehicle accidents. Hemsing claims she is unable to lift any significant amount of weight. She claims that her pain tolerance is worse as the day progresses. <p> At the commencement of her employment with Philips. Hemsing informed Philips that she was disabled and requested that Philips accommodate her by permitting her to work the early shift from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Hemsing claims that after she was hired. Hemsing's shift was never changed. Which is Philips' term for disciplinary action. Hemsing was told not to come to work on April 18 and to either commit herself to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/97-3229.htm">97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Spelling of last name of appellant's counsel should be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/00-1362.htm">00-1362 -- NAVARETTE V. U.S. -- 01/09/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Lionel Navarette. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/014045.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gagliardo was also responsible for a special project the handling of military orders. Gagliardo was by all accounts a capable employee. Gagliardo's life began to change in 1992 or 1994 when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051641P.pdf">N:\DOCS\PATTY\05-1641 LENZ V. YELLOW. FINAL OPN.WPD<BR></A><BR> Is included in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0208p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Gary Steele was injured by a Virginia National Guard vehicle. The United States owns the annuity and retains </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/01-7132.htm">01-7132 -- U.S. V. BIGFORD -- 04/13/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong></strong> Defendant was charged with violating the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-4014.htm">03-4014 -- U.S. V. ATANDI -- 07/23/2004<BR></A><BR> Was charged under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-5049.wpd.html">BLACK V. BAKER OIL TOOLS, INC.<BR></A><BR> Because we agree with the district court that no contract was ever created between Black and Baker Oil. Black was issued a copy of Baker Oil's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-5208.wpd.html">FLETCHER V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Some of whom were not entitled to vote in tribal elections or hold tribal office because they do not own an interest in the Osage mineral estate or headright. Because the district court proceeded without subject matter jurisdiction in light of the Osage Tribe's sovereign immunity and because the franchise was improperly extended in this case and a federal statute prescribed the form of tribal government for the Osage Tribe. It is a final appealable order. Each appendix is consecutively numbered. We will refer to the Appendix to Appellant Osage Tribal Council's Opening Brief as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3091b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude we </P> <P>have jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal and </P> <P>grant the motion for summary reversal.</P> <P> I.</P> <P> On January 31. While the Senate was trying President </P> <P>William J. The New York </P> <P>Times published a front page article captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1753.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Engebretson were on brief for appellees. Because the court's rulings were entirely appropriate. The flight was subsequently canceled. The passengers were asked to deplane. American responded in October 1995 that it was commencing an investigation of the accident and requested information about Louis's injuries. Discussion The district court's opinions are lengthy and thoughtful. A. Personal Jurisdiction District courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over out of state defendants if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055091np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IJ found that Ehoan had committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5033a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. ' of its withholdings may have been inappropriate.... 27 n.1 (1998): A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Creedon & Murphy were on brief. With whom Krakow & Souris was on brief. Belmont was obligated to pay into Union employee benefit funds for the benefit of its workers. When Belmont stopped making the payments it was obligated to make to the fund. It sued Belmont on the agreement and Algar on the theory that Algar was an alter ego of Belmont. That there was never an enforceable agreement. Is applicable in cases brought under ERISA where the basis for imposition of liability is also the alter ego doctrine. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants and will draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Algar was formed in 1990 and remains active today. Belmont was formed in 1992 and was active until the end of 1993. Belmont and Algar are family businesses owned and operated by members of the Bota. Belmont was formally owned by Lionel Diaz ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061411np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was indicted in two counts for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b) (use of mail or facility of interstate or foreign commerce for coercion and enticement of minor for sexual activity) and 2423(b) (travel act). The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). (2) the sentence imposed was unreasonable because the court failed to consider adequately all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). (3) the court erroneously applied a specific offense characteristic to calculate a 2 level sentencing level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.2(b)(3).1 While usually we review a criminal sentence on an abuse of We are using the 2003 Edition of the Guidelines Manual in this case as did the probation officer as neither party suggests that a different edition should have been used. 2 1 discretion basis. In this case our review is plenary because we are concerned with assertions that the district court made errors of law. The facts are well known to the parties and thus we only need to summarize them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4217_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/981861P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives of El Salvador. An institution that was run by Jesuits. Her daughter were all brutally murdered at the university. Holding that he had not suffered past persecution and did not have a well founded fear of future persecution. Was therefore not eligible for asylum. I. An alien is eligible for asylum if he or she is outside his or her own country and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1194_046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government released Ali from custody shortly before this case was argued. So the habeas detention challenge is moot and we review only the decision of the BIA ordering his removal to Somalia. I. Background Ali was born in 1980 in Baidoa. Ali's hometown of Baidoa is located in the Bay region. If Ali were returned to the areas of Somalia controlled by his Rahanweyn clan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1383a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Eric R. With her on the brief were David W. NRDC argues that the Commission's regulation is inconsistent with the text and legislative history of the statute. It further contends that the regulation is improper because it fails to provide procedural safeguards necessary to facilitate effective relief in the event that a meeting is improperly closed to the public. We are unable to accept NRDC's first argument because the Commission has done nothing more than adopt. We are unable to accept the second argu ment because it conflicts with the Court's injunction against imposing non statutory procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1522.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1440p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide. That the purpose or motive for the kidnapping was for companionship or sexual assault of the victim. We find that the sexual assault evidence was probative of motive as well as the victim's nonconsent to the interstate transportation and. Was admissible under rule 404(b). We will affirm. Is a naturalized citizen of the United States having immigrated to this country from Thailand in 1985. Whose nickname is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIzNTYtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2356-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We previously granted Lin's motion and We direct the clerk to alter the official caption to reflect the fact that there are two respondents in this case. 1 1 remanded this case to the BIA. Because there is no procedure by which a petitioner may make a motion in the court of appeals to remand for consideration of new evidence. Given the gravity of Lin's claim of future persecution and the potentially farreaching implications for similarly situated petitioners if the new evidence Lin presents is authentic. It asserts that we have authority to remand only when it requests that we do so. Lin also moved in this Court to remand his case to the BIA to consider previously unavailable evidence suggesting that forced sterilization is part 2 of the official family planning policy in Fujian Province. That this policy is applied to the repatriated parents of foreign born children. There is no procedure by which a petitioner can make a motion in the court of appeals to remand a case for consideration of new evidence. Given the gravity of Lin's claim of future persecution and the potentially farreaching implications for similarly situated petitioners if the new evidence Lin presents is authentic. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985651.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A copy of the opinion is annexed hereto. The allegedly infringing work is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1203p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and will affirm. The complaint alleged that plaintiff had been terminated from his services at the hospital because he was of Colombian extraction. The Medical College of Pennsylvania is an institution that combines teaching medical students with providing medical. He contacted plaintiff who was then on the surgical staff of another institution. Spagna was interested in having an associate who could take over post operative care. Was in the Department of Medicine and did not have any responsibility for hiring surgeons. Whomever it was. Meister wrote that another concern was the plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/99-3091b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude we have jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal and grant the motion for summary reversal. While the Senate was trying President William J. The New York Times published a front page article captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/99-3091a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude we have jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal and grant the motion for summary reversal. While the Senate was trying President William J. The New York Times published a front page article captioned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5259a.html">QI-ZHUO LIN V. MEISSNER, DORIS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/991029.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remaining two claims were tried to a jury. Although this is a troublesome case. We are constrained to affirm. I. Narin was born on April 2. Which was temporary from the start. Was eliminated as planned at the end of the school year. Although the program was later approved. Narin was neither hired nor interviewed for the position. Probably would not have been interested in 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2831_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12B5E979646FEF1D88256FCF00033CA7/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-5269b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. That the declarations in support of the FBI's invocation of FOIA's national security and law enforcement exemptions are insuffi ciently detailed to establish the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Ap pellant James Campbell was writing a biography about James Baldwin. Only some of which are in the appellate record. Summary judgment for the agency is not proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwOTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7090_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury verdict once broken is difficult to put together again. It is difficult to refashion the verdict in a way that accords each party substantial justice. The jury may have made an error favoring defendant. We ordinarily will not consider the argument on appeal. Whose parent is United Technologies. The Fabris warranted and represented to UTI that [n]one of such commissions nor any other money or thing of value has been or will be paid. Including when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/97-5269a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. That the declarations in support of the FBI's invocation of FOIA's national security and law enforcement exemptions are insuffi ciently detailed to establish the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Ap pellant James Campbell was writing a biography about James Baldwin. Only some of which are in the appellate record. Summary judgment for the agency is not proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-10323.man.html">MCMAHAN V. TOTO (7/10/2001, NO. 00-10323)<BR></A><BR> Several of the limited partners in that suit were dismissed. Because their claims were precluded by release and assignment provisions contained in agreements between them and McMahan. The state court granted summary judgment in favor of the limited partners.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7178a.html">NOVECON LTD V. BULGARIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND<BR></A><BR> McFadden argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. ) are private firms engaged in developing busi </p> <p>ness projects in Bulgaria. Plaintiff Richard Rahn is president of both compa </p> <p>nies. Ronald Utt is their managing director. ) </p> <p>is a not for profit corporation established pursuant to the </p> <p>Support for East European Democracy Act. Defendant Frank </p> <p>Bauer is the Fund's president and defendant Nancy Schiller </p> <p>is the managing director of its Chicago office.</p> <p>A</p> <p>In 1991. The correspondence contemplated </p> <p>that the Batsov family would have a 26 percent stake in the </p> <p>building complex. Was written on May 20. It </p> <p>stated that the Fund was ". This list is not exhaustive </p> <p>[but] should provide an overview of the role that [Novecon] </p> <p>will have.". The Fund was willing to compen </p> <p>sate Novecon with the sum of $200. This document is fairly comprehensive. Undoubtedly </p> <p>there will be some need to clarify certain points now or as we </p> <p>proceed.". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3752_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Afi Marie Apouviepseakoda is a native and citizen of Togo who came to the United States in 2002 without a valid visa. She was paroled into the country while awaiting a final determination on her applications for asylum. All of these were denied by an immigration judge (IJ) who ordered her removal. Challenging both the IJ's finding that she was not credible and the BIA's conclusion that the IJ's handling of her hearing did not violate due process. 2 No. 05 3752 Apouviepseakoda says that her troubles began as a result of her husband's business relations with the mayor of Lomé. The mayor is a member of the Union des Forces du Changement. Although her husband is not a member. It is unclear whether she was referring to something beyond his business obligations. The mayor was jailed. A warning was received from a relative that government forces were looking for the husband. When she told them that she did not know where he was she says they beat her with their fists and batons for more than 30 minutes. She was assisted into the country by a friend. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/005063.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is an equity investment firm based in the United States and incorporated in Delaware. That suit was removed to the District Court for the District of Delaware. Though denying that it was bound by the contract Advent contends that the agent who signed the agreement on its behalf lacked authority to do so and that it had so notified Sandvik Advent moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause contained in the agreement. Was in dispute. Two issues are presented. We conclude that this argument is misplaced for three reasons. The issue that the District Court must decide in determining whether the arbitration clause is valid is closely bound with the underlying dispute as to whether an overall contract was entered into by the parties. It is precisely this sort of appeal that the FAA's interlocutory appeal provisions were designed to address. We thus have appellate jurisdiction. The second question is whether the District Court was correct in refusing to compel arbitration. Advent argues that the arbitration clause is severable from the contested agreement under the doctrine announced by the Supreme 3 Court in Prima Paint Corp. v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21168.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Plata now seeks a COA from us on the following issues: (1) whether he is entitled to habeas relief based on the State's failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and (2) whether the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of his parole eligibility during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process. His remaining claims have been waived. A district court shall entertain a § 2254 application filed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994882.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daughtrey is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the 924(c)(1) count. We will conclude that venue was improper in New Jersey and. We will reverse Moreno's conviction under 4 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). We will affirm the defendants' convictions on all other counts. Lopez was arrested and the fourteen kilos of cocaine were seized. Montalvo told Avendano that the seizure of the fourteen kilos and the legal fees were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six <p>defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States <p>District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping <p>and conspiracy to kidnap. <p>and Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to <p>distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and <p>carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these <p>challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's <p>claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep23/02-60782-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943145.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The four defendants are Healthchoice. The and Orlando Regional hospital's parent The incidents giving rise to the lawsuit are Dr. attempt to gain provider membership in unsuccessful Healthchoice and CFMA. Because we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact about Dr. That the defendants are accordingly entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The following is a summary of the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Dr. Levine is an internist. completing his residency in California. Was granted. Provisional staff privileges at the ORHS hospitals.2 ORHS is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates five Orlando area hospitals: Orlando Regional Medical Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984499.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4499 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief contending that he should receive a reduced sentence because he was not informed of the opportunity to contact the Mexican Consulate upon his arrest. The court properly determined that Appellant was competent to enter a plea. Appellant was informed that the court was obligated to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines. Appellant was informed of the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea. Appellant stated that he was not promised anything other than what was in the plea agreement. Nor was he forced to accept the terms of the agreement. The presentence investigation report ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984374.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4374 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Asserting that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the evidence was insufficient. I. The facts are not in dispute. Watched three adults (one of whom was Salas) and a child place three bags in the trunk of a taxi after they left the bus. Who was dressed in plain clothes. Agent Patterson explained to Salas that he and other officers were investigating the flow of drugs into Richmond and asked Salas if he had any drugs. Each of which was in a glass container and wrapped in newspaper. Salas responded that the candles were just made 2 that way. The officer again said he was interested in buying the red candle. Although Salas was a native of the Dominican Republic and had been in the United States only four years. He did not inform the officers that he was a foreign national or a citizen of another country nor did the officers inquire as to his nationality. Salas testified that he would have obtained assistance from the consulate had he been informed that he could do so. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIzNTYtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2356-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We previously granted Lin's motion and We direct the clerk to alter the official caption to reflect the fact that there are two respondents in this case. 1 1 remanded this case to the BIA. Because there is no procedure by which a petitioner may make a motion in the court of appeals to remand for consideration of new evidence. Given the gravity of Lin's claim of future persecution and the potentially farreaching implications for similarly situated petitioners if the new evidence Lin presents is authentic. It asserts that we have authority to remand only when it requests that we do so. Lin also moved in this Court to remand his case to the BIA to consider previously unavailable evidence suggesting that forced sterilization is part 2 of the official family planning policy in Fujian Province. That this policy is applied to the repatriated parents of foreign born children. There is no procedure by which a petitioner can make a motion in the court of appeals to remand a case for consideration of new evidence. Given the gravity of Lin's claim of future persecution and the potentially farreaching implications for similarly situated petitioners if the new evidence Lin presents is authentic. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1097p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are equally applicable. I. Facts and Procedural History Koreh was born on September 4. An area that moved between Romania and Hungary but which was part of Hungary in 1940. As did the district court we rely only on facts that the parties do not dispute.[fn1] Because the relevant facts are set forth in detail in the district court's comprehensive published opinion. Hungary was the site of virulent anti Semitism during the late 1930s and early 1940s. This legislation was followed in 1939 by a second law that attempted to define </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/02-21168.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Plata now seeks a COA from us on the following issues: (1) whether he is entitled to habeas relief based on the State's failure to advise him of his right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and (2) whether the trial court's refusal to allow evidence of his parole eligibility during sentencing violated his constitutional rights to due process. His remaining claims have been waived. A district court shall entertain a § 2254 application filed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2970800759DD382888256C23007644AB/$file/0010307.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gamez was charged with various marijuana and murder related offenses. The district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(d)(1)'s murder cross reference to impose a 151month sentence on Gamez when he otherwise would have been subject to a Guidelines maximum sentence of 46 months. The district court applied the murder cross reference because it found that murder was both foreseeable and in furtherance of the marijuana importation conspiracy in which Gamez participated even though it found that Gamez did not commit murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Border Patrol Agents Alexander Kirpnick ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep10/02-60782-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2015.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that Apna Ghar rejected his job application because he is male. That Apna Ghar is an employer whose business affects commerce. BACKGROUND No. 01 2015 Apna Ghar is an Illinois not for profit organization that provides transitional shelter and walk in social services to victims of domestic violence who are primarily Asian women and children. One of the services it provides is assistance with legal matters. Apna Ghar reviewed his resume and informed him it was not going to interview or hire him because he is male and it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974881.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were married in April 1991. They have one child. She discovered that Ryan did not have a fever. Notice of both the temporary protective order and the final protective 2 order hearing was served on Bostic. Following a full hearing on the matter at which Bostic was present with counsel and had the opportunity to testify. Did allow for Bostic to have visitation from January 29 through February 2. The Order did not provide that Bostic was to surrender possession of any firearms he may have otherwise legally possessed and it did not contain any notice that the mere possession of a firearm while subject to the Order would constitute a violation of any law. The Order did notify that violation of the Order itself </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1262p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to determine whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars a federal court from considering an age discrimination claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. That was acting in its capacity as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2158VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bicki</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052054p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 is a conviction for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7143a.html">DIAL A CAR INC V. TRANS INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53B0546C419A94C888256C3100592E1F/$file/0115938.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts The facts in this case are extremely difficult to ascertain. Milton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971499.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He informed Stull that he was also holding six million shares of TXAG on behalf of Grandname. Stull immediately informed Gable that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5978605BF5E489A588256D95005CB8DB/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bean's contacts with California as a result of its sales and other activities in California are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993863.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide whether. The Supreme Court recently held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E9439316125388F88256BA60080FF7C/$file/0155677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted Hyundai judgment on the pleadings1 on the basis that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)2 applied and its provisions barred Underwood's action based upon the Federal Bill of Lading Act (Pomerene Act)3 because this action was not commenced </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1275.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Straub and Straub & Meyers were on joint brief for appellees Chelmsford School Committee. Susan Wunsch and Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union Foundation were on brief for appellees Michael Gilchrist and Judith Hass. The plaintiffs are two minors TORRUELLA. The minors allege that they were compelled to attend an indecent AIDS and sex education program conducted at their public high school by defendant Hot. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are Chelmsford High School students Jason P. Both students were fifteen years old at the time. The Program was staged by defendant Suzi Landolphi ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/953093.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will not consider the qualified immunity defense in this posture. I. Plaintiff Appellee Suarez Corporation Industries (SCI) is an Ohio corporation that markets its goods through direct mail sweepstakes promotions and other contests. Elizabeth Pishner are West Virginia residents who have purchased goods from SCI or participated in its promotions. Plaintiffs Appellees are collectively referred to as SCI. McGraw is the Attorney General of West Virginia and Rodd is a Senior Assistant Attorney General. Several of SCI's marketing schemes were temporarily enjoined by the state courts. While that motion was pending. Are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The remaining claims are based on state law. The principal bases for these claims are that McGraw and Rodd accelerated enforcement proceedings against SCI after the newspaper ad. That McGraw and Rodd have disseminated derogatory information about other legal proceedings against SCI to the media and Dun & Bradstreet. The district court's only explanation was provided in a footnote: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is not a model pleading in several respects. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/723A7E489D2CA38288256EAC0057C41B/$file/0235761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2004 17:26:46 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74F5B8153F466FCC88256C5400515D76/$file/0017374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That prejudgment interest is not allowable under the Warsaw Convention. We hold that prejudgment interest is available under the Warsaw Convention and that the district court properly awarded such interest to make full restitution to the injured party. K&N issued a single air waybill covering the entire shipment and stating that there was no apparent damage to the cargo prior to transport. K&N noted that a portion of the cargo was damaged. Motorola was forced to replace the equipment at a cost of $459. The total weight of the shipment was 12. The weight of the damaged crate was approximately 680 kilograms. The liability limitation would be calculated according to the weight of the entire shipment and not just that of the damaged portion if Motorola proved at trial that the damaged portion of the cargo affected the value of the entire shipment.3 The court left for trial the questions of whether the overall shipment was affected and the extent of damage done to the property. The judge and counsel for all parties signed the order and agreed that certain legal issues were resolved by the summary adjudication order and on both the factual and legal issues to be resolved at trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975812.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. Because no members of the plaintiff class are illegal aliens. We will for convenience use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85C81264C15934B688256E55007CF2EC/$file/0270956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That an individual in a marriage that cannot legally be registered in China is not a spouse. Is contrary to the relatively recent Congressional amendment granting asylum status to victims of China's oppressive population control policy. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B).1 Ma contends that the marriage restriction is an integral part of the policy that Congress targeted and that in China a pregnancy occurring during a marriage that is not registered is subject to abortion. He maintains that the BIA's decision is based on an 1 Section 101(a)(42)(B) provides in relevant part: For purposes of determinations under this chapter. Shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion. A person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure. Or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion. Namely that there is no connection between the inability to obtain registration from the Chinese government for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/952F4B46EF80DF5188256DC200598815/$file/0150376.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congress was silent whether the elimination of § 212(c) relief applied retroactively to people who were convicted of crimes before 1996. Aliens who committed aggravated felonies were placed in deportation proceedings after being served with an Order to Show Cause. Aliens were placed in removal proceedings after being served with a Notice to Appear. The Supreme Court noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C0FAE1009E088B988256A54005ABFDB/$file/9855331.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this case is whether the district court erred in compelling arbitration. Since the motion to compel arbitration was not based on state law. Harden and the other drivers were told that they could not continue working for RPS without signing the new contract. Section 12.3(d) states: As to any dispute or controversy which under the terms hereof is made subject to arbitration. The district court granted RPS's motion for summary judgment with respect to Harden's second claim because it was precluded by the National Labor Relations Act. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. We have subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the final judgment rule. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAA The district court lacked the authority to compel arbitration in this case because the FAA is inapplicable to drivers. Who are engaged in interstate commerce. He engaged in interstate commerce that is exempt from the FAA. RPS argues that § 1 of the FAA is not fatal to its case because the motion to compel was based on state law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-10323.man.html">MCMAHAN V. TOTO (7/10/2001, NO. 00-10323)<BR></A><BR> Several of the limited partners in that suit were dismissed. Because their claims were precluded by release and assignment provisions contained in agreements between them and McMahan. The state court granted summary judgment in favor of the limited partners.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032775np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such a claim accrues </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 and line 9 the citations are corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B10A64D5BEEA28CC88257022007F38DE/$file/0335411.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We further hold that § 110 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and that it does not violate the First Amendment. Whether the unauthorized practice of law itself is a violation of § 110. Facts Appellant Judith Scott is a franchisee of We The People Forms and Service Centers USA. (We the People or Franchisor).3 Scott is not an attorney. Is a bankruptcy peti11 U.S.C. § 110 has recently been amended. See www.wethepeopleusa.com. (last visited 06/06/05). 1 7248 IN RE: DOSER tion preparer (BPP) within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 110.4 Kevin and Laura Doser's bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code was prepared by Scott. It is her understanding that this Workbook seeks the same information as does the official bankruptcy petition forms. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE30050EBE279F6188256E5A00707B56/$file/9855331.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this case is whether the district court erred in compelling arbitration. Since the motion to compel arbitration was not based on state law. Harden and the other drivers were told that they could not continue working for RPS without signing the new contract. Section 12.3(d) states: As to any dispute or controversy which under the terms hereof is made subject to arbitration. The district court granted RPS's motion for summary judgment with respect to Harden's second claim because it was precluded by the National Labor Relations Act. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. We have subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the final judgment rule. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAA The district court lacked the authority to compel arbitration in this case because the FAA is inapplicable to drivers. Who are engaged in interstate commerce. He engaged in interstate commerce that is exempt from the FAA. RPS argues that § 1 of the FAA is not fatal to its case because the motion to compel was based on state law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021479.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BOYNE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Boyne alleged that his retention of the benefit was justified by WorldCom's own misconduct. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053316np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. The parties are familiar with the facts. We will only briefly summarize them here. Was hired by JC Penney in 1998 to work in the Catalog Department. Vuong alleges that she was a good employee. She was graded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CCBC646D8781D92988256CE8007D6EF4/$file/0116239.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: replace the second full paragraph on page 1358 of the slip opinion with the following text: Following this unfavorable outcome. Bank of America was again named a 3750 BANK OF LAKE TAHOE v. Appellants' and appellees' petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are denied. We address this question only in the context of claims brought under state law because no valid federal claims have been brought against Nevada. Bourdeau is a former manager of Bank of America's Incline Village branch in Nevada. Bourdeau was forced to resign. Although Bourdeau was not authorized to serve in an executive capacity. BLT was chartered and eventually merged with another institution. Bank of America was again named a defendant. 684 (1982)). [1] Although a state is free to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by consenting to suit. The test for waiver is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-1438b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Less radiation is absorbed. Increased human exposure to ultraviolet radiation is linked to a range of ailments. Methyl bromide under a schedule that is in accordance with. The phaseout schedule of the Montreal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014507.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SANCHEZ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In which he represents there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal. We find Sanchez is not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Claims of ineffective assistance generally are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. Because the record in this case does not conclusively show counsel was ineffective. We will not consider this issue on direct appeal. Sanchez also claims his status as a foreign national renders his plea invalid because he should have been afforded the opportunity to consult with his embassy. We will not consider this issue as it is raised for the first time on appeal. We have examined the record for any other potentially meritorious issues and found none. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR> Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2457.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We grant the motion and summarily affirm Costigan's conviction and sentence.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012458.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first class is composed of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2135.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lewcyckyj was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. We have jurisdiction over petitioner's appeal under Section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Petitioner raises three issues on appeal: (1) that he is entitled to temporary refugee status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Dec. 3187 (BIA 1992) is an error of law. The first two are clearly questions of law. Is vested in the political departments of the government. Is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress. Or is required by the paramount law of the Constitution. The Court discussed specifically when international law could be used by the courts: International law is part of our law. As often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. Where there is no treaty. The Court noted: The power of Congress over the admission of aliens and their right to remain is necessarily very broad. It is clear that they do not apply to this case. It is the immigration laws of the United States and the case law interpreting them that control. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5033a.html">ELLEN W. SCHRECKER V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. ' of its withholdings may have been inappropriate....<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053430p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stated that the bill was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001971.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were tenants in outlet shopping malls. The tenant assigned to AFS exclusive control of all potential legal claims that the tenant might have against the landlord. The district court concluded that the contractual arrangements were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></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-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5161a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Michael C. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. After the article was published. To ask why it was silent on Ballenger's marital status. Believing that at least some of his readership was interested in the separation. Ballenger was unavailable. Taking place during regular business hours while Gurley was working in Ballenger's office suite on Capitol Hill. It focused on legislative issues particularly trade and textiles that were of interest to Congressman Ballenger and his 3 constituents. Adding that it was amicable. I was acutely aware that my ability to continue advancing my legislative agenda in Congress and to effectively represent my district depended on the continued trust and respect of my constituents. I was acutely aware that a public scandal related to my marital status could undercut my ability to carry out these responsibilities. Both in the near term and in the long term if it were to become an issue in a future re election campaign. Ballenger stated that CAIR was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34876CC8ACB973F88256E5A00707AA1/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6F7D86C0D07E46788256DAB00804CAD/$file/0235958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is the latest round in a long simmering legal feud between an Alaska Native corporation and a municipality over ownership of land on St. The district court found that the City's claims were barred by the six year statute of limitations that Alaska law imposes on lawsuits by municipalities. Because the City's affirmative defenses are likewise barred by the statute of limitations. Windswept Pribilof Islands were one of the reasons that the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. The fur seal trade on the Pribilof Islands was the only viable commercial prospect of any significance. The City was entitled to a reconveyance from TDX for certain municipal purposes. The parties' disagreement centered on the amount of land TDX was required to reconvey to the City under 43 U.S.C. § 1613(c)(3) and the use restrictions that TDX could impose on the reconveyed land. The two sides reached a settlement that was ultimately approved by the City Council at a public meeting in early 1988. The City's case was later transferred to federal court in Alaska. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul21/03-40545-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The likelihood of a DVT injury is heightened by the pressurized conditions aboard an airliner. Many international carriers have added DVT warnings to their battery of pre flight instructions to passengers. Alleging that it was liable for Blansett's injury under article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. To which the United States is a signatory. An airline is responsible for injuries to passengers on an international flight where the injury results from an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC6F6ADBCF39B05788256E5300569449/$file/0216944.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was heard by the same judge. It raised the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1694.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Griffiths challenges whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1527.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Liability for which is the occasion for the present appeal. Bitler was severely burned when a gas explosion occurred in the basement of his home. Colorado where Fred Bitler was a ranch hand. Bitler discovered that there was no hot water when he attempted to shower. Hot water was supplied to the Bitlers' home by a liquid propane hot water heater located in the basement. Was thrown off a sofa and onto the floor. Which was later determined to have been raised several inches by the force of the explosion. It was established at trial that he has. He will also need additional procedures in the future to develop nail growth on his hands. He is no longer able to perform the duties appertaining to his former occupation as a cowboy and ranch hand. There were three gas propane appliances in the Bitlers' home Ä a cook stove in the kitchen. Gas was supplied to the water heater via unsupported. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3251.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals a district court declaratory judgment that she is prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law following her conviction in Municipal Court in Wichita. Prier dismissed with prejudice her underlying claim that she was terminated from her employment in violation of the federal Family Medical Leave Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1449.html">RAMBUS V. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>William K. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael J. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Craig Thomas Merritt</u>. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Christopher Landau</u>. Dixton</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>John M. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Brian C. Rambus filed numerous divisional and continuation applications based on the original 898 application at least thirty one of which have issued.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Many of these patents claim aspects of a memory technology known as Rambus DRAM (RDRAM).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In April 1991. Rambus attended a Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) meeting as a guest.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Rambus officially joined JEDEC in February 1992.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>JEDEC is a standard setting body associated with the Electronic Industries Association (EIA).<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5088a.html">AKINS JAMES V. FEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDA7E49995BC06D888256A15005FA185/$file/9855160.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine when a service mark is first used in commerce under the Lanham Act. We conclude that Pac Tel's first use of the mark was even earlier than that found by the district court. April 1990 was the first time LACOE began using the system on a non test basis. When the system was publicly launched. Pac Tel was developing customers among various vehicle fleet operating enterprises and had agreements with at least twenty four of them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EDA97B5D4D00F12B88257220000042A7/$file/0516454.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Renderos identifies no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413740.rem.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lora Sisson are current or former hourly employees of defendantappellant Mohawk Industries. The plaintiffs also alleged that Mohawk was unjustly enriched by the lower wages it paid. Whether plaintiffs state proximately caused injuries to business or property by alleging that the hourly wages they voluntarily accepted were too low. This case is now before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court. I. BACKGROUND 3 Mohawk is the second largest carpet and rug manufacturer in the United States and has over 30. Mohawk employees have traveled to the United States Border. To recruit undocumented aliens that recently have entered the United States in violation of federal law. These employees and other persons have transported undocumented aliens from these border towns to North Georgia so that those aliens may procure employment at Mohawk. Have provided housing to these illegal workers upon their arrival in North Georgia and have helped them find illegal employment with Mohawk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tran argues that the BIA erred by retroactively applying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) to Tran's pre IIRIRA felony convictions and by concluding that Tran is not eligible for protection under the CAT. We conclude that the IIRIRA's provision allowing for the deportation of aliens convicted of an aggravated felony was properly applied to Tran's pre IIRIRA conviction. I. Tran was born in South Vietnam to Chinese parents who had immigrated to Vietnam during French colonization. Tran was charged in Ohio state court in 1987 of aggravated murder and robbery. Tran's counsel responded that Tran had been advised that the INS's practice was not to deport people to Vietnam because there were no diplomatic relations between the two countries. Section 321(b) made the expanded definition applicable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Katherine O'Neill was originally hired as a social worker by the Department of Public Welfare in 1975. She went to work for DSS in 1983 and was sent to the Chelsea DSS office in 1990. O'Neill was a tenured employee under the Massachusetts civil service system and a member of the public employees' union. DSS must start to investigate and evaluate a report of a physically or emotionally injured child within two hours of initial contact and complete the investigation within 24 hours if there is reason to believe the child is in immediate danger. <U>See</U> Mass. O'Neill attributed these absences to a chronic illness that was exacerbated by the stress of her job. Reminded her when she was expected to report to work. The letter further said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510624.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: Appellant Evans was convicted of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The sole issue presented is whether the jury was entitled to find that Evans caused this telefax to be sent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BSRR is a common carrier by rail that holds itself out to the public for hire. Fairfield's trainmen and acting tower supervisors are the Willard appealed the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment. While this appeal was pending. All other Fairfield supervisors are also BSRR employees. To two vendors of Fairfield Works whose facilities are located on U.S. Is a party to those contracts. Fairfield maintains a separate account which is used for funding its payroll and payments to vendors. The employees are eligible to 3 receive Alabama state unemployment benefits rather than benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Willard filed a Rule 56(f) motion to reopen discovery because he learned that the Federal Railroad Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516659.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315321.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers. The jury trial focused on whether the plaintiff consented or was sexually battered by the crew member. The district court sua sponte raised an entirely new issue regarding which of the four defendants actually employed the errant crew member and whether that employer was a common carrier. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove any single defendant was both a common carrier and the employer of the crew member Honorable Richard Mills. Sitting by designation. 2 * and therefore that no defendant was liable for the crew member's assault. A cruise line is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers during the cruise. Inc. is the operator of the M/V ZENITH. Zenith Shipping Corporation is the owner of the vessel. Contending that they are not liable for Aydin's intentional misconduct. Defendants argued that they are liable (1) only for their own breach of reasonable care under the circumstances and (2) only for their employees' intentional conduct while acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the defendants' business purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1345.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackie Marie Hudson are Sisters in the Dominican Order. They contend that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Is unconstitutional