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 government and contracts returned 3100 results.

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

	PACRIM PIZZA COMPANY V. ROBERT PIRIE Argued for appellee.
	YANKEE ATOMIC V. U.S.
	02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003 Senior Circuit Judge.
	CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief were Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief was David M. Director. Of counsel on the brief were Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates. On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision. This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken. We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3] This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
	ALLEGHENY TELEDYNE INCORPORATED V. U.S. Et al. Of counsel on the brief was Scott Arnold. . Argued for plaintiff appellant General Motors Corporation. With him on the brief were Alan I. Trafford. Of counsel on the brief was Norman R. Argued for defendant cross appellant. With him on the brief were Robert D. Of counsel on the brief were Stephen R. For amicus curiae Viacom Inc. Of counsel on the brief was Herbert L. For amicus curiae General Electric Company. With him on the brief were Howard J. The trial court entered an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) certifying that it decided a controlling question of law with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. This court granted those petitions. The GM and Teledyne cases are now before this court in a consolidated appeal. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly interpreted the original CAS 413.
	WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
	97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000 We are just one race here. It is American.
	OPINION/ORDER Who pled guilty to importing goods into the United States that were not marked with the country of origin in violation of 18 U.S.C. Only two of the issues are of general interest and precedential value. We conclude that statements made during the factual basis portion of the plea colloquy after the plea agreement has been made are not stipulations for the purpose of section 1B1.2. We will reverse the judgment to the extent that it relied on the fraud guidelines in sentencing the defendants. 3 The second question concerns whether the president of a defense contracting company occupies a position of trust with regard to the government. Are supported by the record and are legally correct. We will therefore affirm the District Court's decision to increase Nathan's base offense level two points on this ground. We will affirm in part. Nathan was Electrodyne's president and vice president. Lander was its director of marketing. They stipulated that the applicable sentencing guideline was the smuggling guideline.
	WINSTAR V. U.S.
	UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK MACHINE AND ENG. CO. Are. See 50 U.S.C. 1431 36 (granting agency head authority to provide extraordinary relief to a contractor when a contract is deemed essential to the national defense). The default clause provided that if the government's default termination was proper. That if the government's default termination was improper. They are the Rules pertinent to the instant case. References hereinafter will be to the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (
	APPLIED COMPANIES V. U.S.
	SEABOARD LUMBER COMPANY V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER Chief Judge: This is an appeal by Peter A. Murphy following a jury trial in which he was convicted on three counts of violating the Travel Act. Murphy is the former Chairman of the Republican Party in Passaic County. Who was involved in the bribery scheme. Margiotta was decided over a strong dissent by Judge Ralph K. That such an inquiry was not based on any legal duties articulated in federal or state law. The Government's Margiotta theory was that Murphy had attained such a dominant role in the political system of Passaic County that he could be considered the equivalent of a publicly elected official. Murphy contends that this court should not endorse the Margiotta rationale because it is an overreaching interpretation of the mail fraud statute. Which was the predicate offense in the Travel Act charges. We are not persuaded by this argument. It was improper for the District Court to allow the jury to create one. We will therefore reverse Murphy's mail fraud 4 conviction and remand for a new trial in which the Margiotta theory of mail fraud will not be submitted.
	WEST V. ALL STATE BOILER, INC.
	NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING V. U.S.
	ORANGE VINCENT B. V. DC
	DONALD H. RUMSFELD V. APPLIED COMPANIES Filed a response to the petition for the appellant. With him on the response were Robert D. Assistant Director. With him on the brief were Maureen E. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. For amicus curiae American Chemistry Council. With him on the brief were Walter Dellinger and Jonathan D. As may be approved or ratified by the Contracting Officer and as are included in the following items: 8. It is the understanding of the parties hereto. That all work under this Title III is to be performed at the expense of the Government and that the Government shall hold [DuPont] harmless against any loss. Damage or liability is due to the personal failure on the part of the corporate officers of [DuPont]. The government terminated the MOW Contract and entered into a supplemental agreement with DuPont (the Termination Supplement ). Neither DuPont nor the government was able to locate a copy of the Termination Supplement.
	OPINION/ORDER We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Gregory Husisian. With her on the brief were Stephan E. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. With him on the brief were Richard O. BACKGROUND Enriched uranium fuel rods are used by the utility industry to generate nuclear power. LEU is used to fabricate uranium rods. Many utilities in the United States contract to buy uranium from a third party seller and then contract to have that uranium enriched by a uranium enricher. Those determinations focused on two main issues: (1) whether SWU contracts were contracts for the sale of goods and not services and. (2) whether domestic utilities or foreign enrichers were
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Perrin Rynders. Of counsel was Cynthia W. With her on the brief were Peter D. L.L.C. (
	OPINION/ORDER Special Assistant United States Attorney were on brief. Moore & Jones were on brief. The district court found that the Information was insufficient to sustain the charges and dismissed it.1 For the reasons that follow. The court was bound to accept the lower court's 2 nom. 1082 are reviewed de novo. Concise and An information is sufficient if it
	HANSEN BANCORP, INC., ET AL V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief was Richard E. Argued for defendant cross appellant. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Line height:200%'>This is a Winstar related case. In Hansen Bancorp. The United States urges reversal of the court s ruling that its contract with the Hansens and Hansen Bancorp was totally breached. The United States also challenges the court s rejection of its contention that a $1.2 million dividend paid to the Hansens by Hansen Bancorp should be offset against any award of restitution to the Hansens. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Of counsel on the brief were Mark J. Argued for plaintiff appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. On the brief were John V. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Cl. 310 (2002). The
	SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY V. U.S. Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were Ruth G. With him on the brief were Robert D. This court also reverses the holding that the suspensions were reasonable as a matter of law. This court affirms the rest of the issues on appeal and remands for further proceedings. 54 Fed. The Forest Service orally informed Scott that it was suspending operations under the § 318 contracts. The temporary restraining order expired ten days later. However. That agency s operations will have on any newly listed species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). That it was entitled to participate in the consultation process. The formal consultation began on December 8.
	OPINION/ORDER Granting the motion of Defendant to dismiss for lack of Plaintiffs are independent contractors who transport the mail on highways for Defendant. Plaintiffs have fixed rate contracts: the rate that Defendant pays Plaintiffs is determined with reference to Plaintiffs' annual estimates of the cost and amount of fuel that will be needed in transporting the mail. Rendering inaccurate the estimates upon which the contract payments were determined. Then Plaintiffs have the contractual right to request an adjustment in the contract price. Because the fuel prices that Plaintiffs pay are passed on to Defendant in pre contract estimates and potentially in requests that are granted for adjustments during the life of the contracts. These contracts are referred to by Plaintiffs as
	AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH V. US With him on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas R. With him on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief were Elizabeth A. With him on the brief was Clarence T. Of counsel on the brief were L. Was void ab initio. We now hold that the contract was not void. Which were difficult to monitor using available technology and equipment. The contract was a
	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs cross appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2
	LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. V. U.S. With him on the brief was Thomas W. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel J. Of counsel were Mark M. With them on the brief were Loretta C. With him on the brief was David Kasanow.
	BOEING NORTH AMERICAN V. JAMES G. ROCHE For appellant.
	BARSEBACK KRAFT V. U.S.
	WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER Of counsel on the brief were Howard N. On the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. This is a Winstar damages case. The breach was the elimination of regulatory capital by the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. We conclude that the $118 million amount is not recoverable under a restitution theory because the appellant elected to continue performance under the contract to the benefit of the appellant and to the detriment of the government. Is not recoverable under a reliance theory because the damages were not foreseeable as a matter of law. BACKGROUND I Before the transactions that are the focus of this lawsuit. Old Stone Corporation (
	COMMERCIAL V. US
	D & H DISTRIBUTING V. U.S.
	DONALD H. RUMS V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES Argued for appellant. With her on the brief were Robert D. Director. Of counsel on the brief were William F. Argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Roger N. Desai. Of counsel on the brief was Paul L. 2001). The Board found that payments made to Pratt s foreign suppliers to acquire parts under collaboration agreements were not costs for purposes of calculating indirect cost pool (overhead) allocation bases under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). Id. at 1. Because we conclude that Pratt did incur a cost for collaboration parts. Mso bidi font family:
	SATELLITE ELECTRIC CO. V. DALTON
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was William W. Of counsel on the brief were David S. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. Of counsel was Jerome A. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the government. Is withdrawn and vacated. Because we hold that the contract is tainted from its inception by fraud and thus void ab initio. That the claims against the government are excused by prior material breach. I. This case is another of the many Winstar cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (
	01-7106 -- CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA V. THOMPSON -- 11/26/2002 The Act further stipulates that the Secretary will provide funding for the administration of those programs. The basic idea behind the ISDA is to promote tribal autonomy and self determination by permitting tribes to operate programs previously operated by the federal government. The Secretary is obligated to provide funding for those self determination contracts or compacts
	THE SHOSHONE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE WIND RIVER V. U.S. Argued for plaintiff cross appellant The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation. With him on the brief were Lynn E. Calkins and Maria Whitehorn Votsch. Also on the brief was Richard M. Who argued for plaintiff cross appellant The Arapaho Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation. With him on the brief was Brian W. Argued for United States. With him on the
	AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR Geller argued the cause for appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were David M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: These are four consolidated cases on appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining regulations of the National Park Service governing concession contracts in the National Park System. Many of the issues are tied to the history of the National Park System and the functions concessioners perform in the operation of the parks. The history begins with the discovery of
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Kathleen Hallam. These additional loans were guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (
	CIENEGA GARDENS V. US
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Russell F. Of counsel was Terrie L. With him on the brief was Andrew D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles M. With him on the brief were Peter D. The Healthcare Authority of the City of Huntsville (collectively the
	BEACON OIL CO. V. O'LEARY
	99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/24/2001 Rockwell was compensated on a
	OPINION/ORDER She was held to her end of the bargain. While the Government was free not to perform its end of the bargain. The facts are taken from Holbrook's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). He had told several individuals that he was removing Holbrook as a beneficiary of his government benefits and life insurance policies. Because Holbrook committed this prior offense when her name was Agnes Bernice Phillips. Holbrook determined that the gun was in need of repairs and had a friend return it to the dealer. Wuderman was not a licensed firearms dealer. HOLBROOK of the shooting remain somewhat a mystery because Holbrook was the only witness to the shooting. Are undisputed. He had told someone that he was going to pick up his kids to go play ball. Although it is unclear from the evidence why Larry drove to Holbrook's residence on March 24. Their investigation found that Larry Holbrook had no gunpowder residue on his hands and his fingerprints were not found on the weapon. Larry must have found in its hiding place behind her dresser mirror.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (FEI) was suspended from eligibility for new prime contracts with the United States on December 13. These civil matters are also pending in the Eastern District of New York. The Air Force Suspension Officer (AFSO) informed FEI that it was suspended from receiving new prime contracts with the government. The letter expressly noted that the suspension
	99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 03/04/2002 Was circulated to the members of the panel and all circuit judges of the court in regular service. That suggestion is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel has been considered by the panel and it has been determined that rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of modifying the opinion and ordering a limited remand to the district court as provided herein. The limited remand to the district court is for the purpose of that court making findings of fact and conclusions concerning the issue of disclosure prior to filing of this action in accordance with the False Claims Act. A supplemental record will be transmitted to this court containing the additional findings and conclusions made on this limited remand. This court will otherwise retain jurisdiction of this cause. The rulings made previously in our opinion are undisturbed. Final disposition of these appeals will be made. The court's opinion as modified on rehearing by the panel is being filed along with this order. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Patrick Fisher.
	OPINION/ORDER HOLLOWAY and HARTZ
	OPINION/ORDER This case is before us after the Supreme Court granted Rockwell International Corporation's petition for writ of certiorari and reversed the portion of our prior judgment in favor of plaintiff James S. ORDER AFTER LIMITED REMAND The disposition of the instant appeals by published opinion for a divided panel was suspended on petition for rehearing. Is reported. We will not attempt to summarize in this order the complex factual and legal background of this matter which is outlined in that opinion. At which all counsel agreed that the record was adequate to enable the judge to make the findings and conclusions necessary. Defendant avers that this point is (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (2) Judge Hartz has replaced the late Judge Politz on the panel. (1) See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4). (2) These terms are explained in our published opinion. moot because the verdict for the time frame including this claim was in its favor. Stone had conceded that he did not make pre filing disclosure to the government of any knowledge he may have had underlying his claims with respect to
	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY V. U.S. With him on the brief was Thomas C. With him on the brief was David . With him on the brief were Gerald A. ) to refund excess revenues collected under energy sales contracts was unreasonable. ) were entitled. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Western's refund methodology was unreasonable. The dam was later named the Hoover Dam. Firm energy was described a pre defined minimum amount of energy that the Secretary reasonably expected the Hoover Dam to generate each year. See id. For example. The total amount of firm energy was to be 205 billion kilowatt hours. Secondary energy was defined as the amount of energy generated in any given year in excess of firm energy. See id. Unlike the firm energy. The yearly availability of secondary energy was speculative and depended upon the vicissitudes of the Colorado River's hydrology. These rate setting determinations were to be made at five year intervals. Rates were set so as to ensure that the revenues collected from the sale of energy would ".
	OPINION/ORDER Oh
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER They are entitled to an abatement of the penalties assessed under those provisions. Concluded that reasonable cause was not established by the Taxpayers because financial distress was the only fact and circumstance supporting their failure to pay and deposit employment taxes timely. Because we believe the Brewery bright line test is inconsistent with both Congress' creation of a reasonable cause exception and Treas. We believe the better reasoned approach is the one set forth in Fran Corp. v. We have concluded that reasonable cause existed for the Taxpayers' failure to pay and deposit their employment taxes timely. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and enter judgment for the Taxpayers. I. The following facts are undisputed and have been largely stipulated to by the parties. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellant. Kaufman and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. The court should not have directed a verdict on the
	TECHNICAL V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. That travel management contracts are covered by the provisions of the Service Con tract Act. They typically are
	OPINION/ORDER
	DJ MANUFACTURING V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER With on the brief was Debra L. Of counsel on the brief were Steven S. With him on the brief was Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. FSB (
	CITY OF TACOMA V. RICHARDSON
	HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. US For defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because that method is not inconsistent with our decision in Applied Cos.. 100 of which were managed by CECOM in the procurement at issue in this case. Hi Shear. CECOM identified the particular spare parts that were appropriate for multi year contracts. It then grouped those parts into acquisition packages based on similarity of materials and components. Id. at 424. Once the parts were allotted between acquisition packages. Each part was assigned one of three quantity ranges for each year of the contract. Id. Because of well recognized economies of scale. Bidders were to provide unit prices for each of the quantity ranges for each of the five possible ordering
	ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-5274.man.html">ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/993122P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was organized to build power plants and provide power for its members. Which is the subject of this litigation. The methodology Basin used for determining the cost of AVS II power was set out in Exhibit A of the contract. The Rural Utilities Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the truckers' claims are essentially contractual and therefore must be heard in the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act. We hold that the claims are essentially contractual and affirm the district court's dismissal. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff truckers are independent contractors who transport mail for the United States Postal Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5065.html">LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC., V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Edward D. Of counsel was David C. With him on the brief were Peter D. After the contract work was completed. TEG alleged that it was entitled to additional compensation under the contract based upon its removal of excessive quantities of asbestos. The Geneva Towers were two high rise apartment buildings in San Francisco. HUD solicited bids on a contract for asbestos abatement and TEG was awarded the contract on May 8. The deadline for finishing the abatement was changed to February 15. This delay was purportedly caused at least in part by disagreements between TEG and HUD over contract requirements. The parties disagreed as to (i) whether the contract required TEG to abate asbestos in the pores and cracks of the Geneva Towers' surfaces and (ii) whether TEG was required to comply with the contract specifications rather than TEG's work plan. Friable materials are capable. The original asbestos abatement standard was set forth at Section 2080. Shall be cleaned to a degree that no traces of debris or residue are visible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178a.htm">97-3178A -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024753.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Quinn's experience in government offices convinced him that the existing programs were wasteful and inadequate. Quinn estimated that they could make between $30 million and $60 million from Equus once the EOAF office was fully automated. Blanton stated that she wanted Quinn to be the project manager for the automation project once CTI was awarded the contract. CTI soon learned that Blanton was removing CTI employees from work details at EOAF and complaining to other government officials about CTI's work. When another government official asked CTI what was causing these new complaints. A CTI representative suggested that Blanton was upset UNITED STATES v. QUINN 5 because CTI was dragging its feet on the automation contract proposal. Treasury Department procurement officers advised Quinn and Blanton that once a contractor was selected. West Electronics ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C72B8570A5CAE2CA88256BE6004EB1F1/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. The Oil Companies' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Is also DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous waste associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 07/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Singleton was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. A detective of the Wichita Police Department contacted local Western Union agents to determine if drug dealers were using Western Union services to transfer drug money. The records led authorities to a group of people whom they believed were involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs. Further investigation indicated the drug business was begun by men who had moved from California to Wichita. Singleton was identified as one who transferred and received money for the conspiracy. She was the common law wife of Eric Johnson. She was listed as either the sender or recipient on eight wire transfers suspected to have been sent on behalf of the conspiracy. Handwriting experts confirmed that her handwriting was present on paperwork accompanying the eight wire transfers. <p> Ms. Singleton and others were charged in a superseding indictment with multiple counts of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The basis for her motion was that the government had impermissibly promised Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1976p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are six Pennsylvania and Ohio residents and an Indiana organization committed to environmental preservation. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that approval of the projects was arbitrary. Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to develop land and resource plans that are used as a guide to all resource activities in a national forest. The process is described in some depth in Ohio Forestry Association v. The statute also imposes procedural obligations on the Secretary to ensure that environmental interests will be considered in the plan. The Service concluded that they were consistent with the resource plan and would not create a significant environmental impact within the forest. A motion for leave to intervene was filed by a number of area school districts located near the Allegheny National Forest. The Commonwealth forwards these sums to counties where the forest is situated. Joining the motion for leave to intervene were Brookville Wood Products. Payne and Spilka have existing contracts to cut timber as part of the Minister Watershed Project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2F27EFF2D8F1A2988256EB5004E2AED/$file/0215762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5103.html">BROWN PARK V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Alan M. Of counsel on the brief was James Hubbard. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was Jonathan S. The issue is whether the Government is liable for breach of contract resulting in alleged losses sustained by plaintiff Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061030p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Lessner was a Procurement Contracting Officer. The DSCP is one of several field offices of the Defense Logistics Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/011793.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The contracts were funded by a grant from the United States Department of the Interior to the GVI for capital improvement projects. At issue here is Gumbs's submission to the GVI of requests for payment of $92. Gumbs was indicted on two counts of willfully causing a false claim to be made or presented to a federal department in violation of 18 U.S.C. Gumbs was also indicted on two counts of making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal department in violation of 18 U.S.C. These counts were dismissed before trial. 2 Gumbs moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Gumbs submits that there was insufficient evidence that he knew that the contracts in question were federally funded. That such knowledge is required before a defendant may be convicted under S 2(b) and S 287. The government responds that S 2(b) and S 287 do not require a defendant to know that he is causing a false claim to be presented to a federal department. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It appeals the District Court's decision that it was not entitled to such a refund. The Internal Revenue Code provided that qualifying taxpayers were 2 entitled to an income tax credit for qualified investments in certain tangible property. Among the credits that were eliminated were investment tax credits on property brought into service after December 31. One of these transitional rules is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938498.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In light of our finding that the evidence does not prove the DD 250 forms submitted to the government were false. I. BACKGROUND Jody Cannon was General Manager at Space Age Manufacturing. Count I of the superseding He was General Manager when the indicted activity indictment charges Mr. A substantive count (Count V) of using false documents to elicit payment on contracts Cannon knew were not performed to military specifications. Which is used to feather a propeller on a C 130 aircraft.1 which Second. The titanium armor to plating be for H 53 helicopters contract required ballistically tested that is. To have defied penetration when shot with bullets. The substantive count depends on whether this government argument is correct as a matter of law. We will not disturb the trial judge's decision to admit or exclude evidence absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutorial conduct requires a new trial only if we find the remarks (1) were improper and (2) prejudiced Cannon's substantive rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William R. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel on the brief was Jason Roberts. Are not money mandating for purposes of the Samish claims. These claims are not within the trial court's Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction. That the Samish claims to federal benefits for the 1969 to 1996 period are not time barred. We therefore reverse the dismissal of count two on limitations grounds and remand for further proceedings to determine whether the remaining statutes underlying the claim are money mandating. That but for federal misconduct they would have received federal benefits since 1969. The counterfactual that they would otherwise have been acknowledged is the first element to their claims for benefits between 1969 and 1996. For thirty three years the Samish have. More generally concerning the justiciability of federal recognition. 04 5042 2 Federal recognition or acknowledgement is a prerequisite to an Indian tribe's right to claim benefits under federal statutes. 25 C.F.R. § 83.2 (2005). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCDEC0F7A124EC4A88256B5D005D0555/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous wastes associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-8498.html">UNITED STATES V. CANNON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. In light of our finding that the evidence does not prove the DD 250 forms submitted to the government were false. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Jody Cannon was General Manager at Space Age Manufacturing. He was General Manager when the indicted activity occurred.<p> Space Age contracted with the United States Air Force to supply parts for military aircraft. A substantive count (Count V) of using false documents to elicit payment on contracts Cannon knew were not performed to military specifications. Which is used to feather a propeller on a C 130 aircraft.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-8498.html">UNITED STATES V. CANNON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. In light of our finding that the evidence does not prove the DD 250 forms submitted to the government were false. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Jody Cannon was General Manager at Space Age Manufacturing. He was General Manager when the indicted activity occurred.<p> Space Age contracted with the United States Air Force to supply parts for military aircraft. A substantive count (Count V) of using false documents to elicit payment on contracts Cannon knew were not performed to military specifications. Which is used to feather a propeller on a C 130 aircraft.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1277.html">SPENCER ABRAHAM V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc Johnston</u>. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Scott James Preston</u>. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981102.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of various counts of conspiracy. When these assets were called upon to pay outstanding medical reinsurance claims. The stocks were deemed worthless. Teale's contracts reinsuring these policies were entered on November 16. The Teale Network was organized and controlled by Alan Teale. Neither is a party to these proceedings but both are alleged to be unindicted co conspirators. We will refer to both collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5103.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Richard D. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Ronald W. Of counsel were <U>Bruce H. With him on the brief were <U>Jeanne E. Of counsel was <U>William F. With him on the brief were <U>Charles J. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Jerry Stouck</U>. With him on the brief were <U>John M. The issue in this case is how to measure the damages sustained by savings and loan institutions as a result of the breach by the United States of contracts it made with these organizations during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The judgment of this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for a trial on damages.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062304np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. He was forced to submit his resignation after it was discovered that he accepted illegal gratuities. 1 was also a federal employee at the naval base. One of Marlowe's duties was to supervise all employees who handled DECC's procurement activities. There are two related cases. Both of these defendants have been sentenced. 2 1 the two formed a secret partnership to develop and market a computer software program to replace the software DECC was using at that time. Most of the government contracts were for information technology ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2639_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are at the heart of this case. We will discuss the facts of each separately in the interest of clarity. Which were neither MBEs nor WBEs. One or more members of a minority group must have ownership of 51% of the company. One or more members of a minority group must have dayto day management and control. There was an additional limitation. An established business was one which. This restriction indicates that Chicago was not interested in subsidizing entrenched. Even if the businesses were owned by women or minorities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1095.htm">97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999<BR></A><BR> GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. <p> Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation <p> MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003318.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether plaintiffs should have obtained a stay under S 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code before appealing an assumption and an assignment under S 365. This appeal arises from the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the assumption of eight physician employment contracts by the Chapter 11 Trustee of a bankrupt health care system and their assignment to another hospital.1 Contending their employment contracts were not assignable. Our review of its decision is plenary. The other plaintiffs are Bonnie K. The defendants appellees are AHERF 's Chapter 11 trustee and the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance along with Allegheny General Hospital. 3. The acquisition of a nonprofit corporation's membership interest is comparable to the purchase of stock in a business. AHERF was the sole member of its affiliates and the sale of its memberships interests to the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance effected a complete change of control. 5. AUHS is substituted for MCP HU in their contracts. 5 contesting Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance's financial viability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5149.html">MELKA MARINE, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on he brief were <U>David M. Contending that it has proven it is entitled to damages stemming from government caused delay between November 16. Because the Court applied an incorrect test and Melka has shown that it may be entitled to recover at least some damages for a portion of the time</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/97-5061a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Mary Lou Leary. The indictment alleged that Milford was involved in the scheme to defraud. Jeffrey Goldstein was in complete control of Commercial. He was president and sole stockhold er of the corporation when the contracts involved in this case were negotiated. The price schedule was based upon cost and pricing data submitted by Commercial during the course of these negotiations. Commercial: reported significant commercial sales when the real numbers were much smaller. This court cannot hear claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5137.html">IMPRESA CONSTRUZIONI GEOM. DOMENICO GARUFI V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Vicki E. Of counsel were <u>Kenneth M.<a NAME= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1258.html">ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. V. DAVID J. BARRAM<BR></A><BR> Of counsel was <u>Mark A. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>John E. Including the six appellants. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1391.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Of counsel on the brief were Kevin A. With him on the brief was Geoffrey D. Of counsel were Michael J. This is a patent infringement case in which the United States District Court for the Western District of New York concluded at summary judgment that suit against a hazardous waste remediation contractor was barred by government contractor immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Because we agree with the district court that the contractor's use of the accused method was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7119a.html">USA/MODERN ELEC INC V. IDEAL ELEC SEC CO<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Thomas P. Of counsel on the brief were John D. Of counsel was Gary L. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The judgment is affirmed. The terms and conditions were set forth in an Assistance Agreement between Nationwide and the FSLIC. FSLIC would provide tax exempt reimbursement of 90% of each covered asset that was liquidated at a loss. In that the 03 5128 2 10% reduction in loss reimbursement was one third of the 30% tax rate set in the Assistance Agreement. The transfer to Nationwide of the five Southwest Plan thrift institutions was completed in December 1988. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Thomas G. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was Maureen A. This appeal is another in a series of Winstar related cases. The Court of Federal Claims determined that the government breached its contract and that Westfed is entitled to approximately $305 million in reliance damages. Westfed is a thrift holding company. Which was subject to regulatory approval. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$file/0372511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Sought to recover in quantum meruit the amount over and above the original contract price that it was required to pay in order to complete the project after the contractor defaulted. United Pacific alleged that it was entitled to quantum meruit recovery because the contract at issue was illegal and therefore void ab initio. The contract was illegal because it was entered into in violation of two statutes. We cite to the versions of sections 2805 and 2811 that were in effect in 1995 when the contract at issue was formed. 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1286.html">TOMMY G. THOMPSON V. CHEROKEE NATION<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief was <u>Robert D. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Melanie B. New Mexico for amicus curiae Ramah Navajo Chapter.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Carl Bryant Rogers</u>. The Secretary s obligation to pay was subject to the availability of appropriations. and the Secretary was not required to reduce funding for programs. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5035.html">DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> It is</p> <p>ORDERED and ADJUDGED: </p> <p> . Of counsel was <u>Kevin S. With her on the brief were <u>Vito J. The government was licensed to use this invention as disclosed in U.S. It also proposed a royalty rate to the government of 2% (25% of a reasonable commercial royalty) of the contract price for any particular project where the invention was used. No royalty payments were due. The letter affirmed that no royalty payments would be made and concluded this was the government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF43FB23AFC4323A88256E3E0061BBB6/$file/0016922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This is another in a long line of cases involving the Central Valley Project (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953377.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees/cross appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1145.html">JOHNSON MANAGEMENT GROUP CFC, INC., V. MEL R. MARTINEZ<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Assistant Director.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7249a.html">AMER ASSN UNIV PROF V. BD TRST UNIV DC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416091.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. (collectively the health care agencies will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5048.html">EXXON 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-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5114.html">B & G ENTERPRISES, LTD V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>John M. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Katherine M. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Karen Wagner</u>. Of counsel was <u>Patricia Kaeding</u>. Ha[ve] in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer. HHS was instructed to reduce that state </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0350p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gardiner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which he was convicted. Alleges that there was prosecutorial misconduct that impacted his substantial rights. Lupo appeals claiming that: (1) he was sentenced using the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines. (2) his sentence is unreasonable under United States v. (3) he is entitled to a new trial 1 Nos. 05 1247/1248 United States v. Page 2 where there were improper references made during his trial to his alleged mafia connections. (4) he is entitled to a new trial where the government failed to disclose that one of its witnesses had failed a polygraph test. We have reviewed all of Defendants' various claims. The Indictments A thirty five count Indictment was handed down in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on June 25. Gardiner was charged in Count 1. Gardiner and Hudson were also charged in Count 3 with conspiracy to affect commerce under color of official rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (bribery)1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/075FC67D01D1D7E6882570370081963B/$file/0316940.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the programs at issue are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Monica A. Of counsel was Lesley A. Of counsel on the brief were Richard C. Of counsel on the brief were Melvin C. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Kenneth M. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that the Individual Plaintiffs have standing to sue for breach of contract. Although we agree that the Institutional Plaintiffs are entitled to the categories of damages awarded to them. There are issues with the calculation of those damages that require further fact finding to fully resolve. A. BACKGROUND Overview of Winstar Litigation This is a Winstar related case involving claims against the government stemming from Congress' enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. FIRREA was passed as part of the government's response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The circumstances surrounding the crisis in the savings and loan industry are well documented elsewhere. An understanding of the government's response to that crisis and the resulting litigation is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5079.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Nathan C. With him on the brief were Peter D. Appellants did not use the enriched uranium or produce nuclear power.1 We conclude that the tax was improperly levied on the appellants. As the reactor fuel is depleted. It is necessary to increase the concentration of U 235 to that needed for nuclear reaction. The fee is calculated by a formula that includes the difference in the amount of U 235 in the starting material. The amount of U 235 in the enriched fuel that is returned to the utility. This difference is defined in terms of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="593"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-7090a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Robert B. He argues that the monthly invoices that JSE submitted to the government for payment under government contracts were false claims. They were false. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/983641.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to construe 18 U.S.C.S 666. We conclude that the District Court erred in interpreting the statute in this respect and will therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will vacate this aspect of the sentencing order and direct the District Court on remand to award the additional one point reduction if it determines that Zwick timely provided complete information to the government or timely notified the government of his intent to plead guilty to enable the government and court to conserve their resources.1 I. Zwick was an elected member of the Ross Township Board of Commissioners. Which would have preserved Zwick's legal challenge to the application of S 666 when there is no connection between a defendant's conduct and federal funds or programming. Zwick was willing to plead guilty to the bank fraud and mail fraud counts. Further plea negotiations were derailed. So the case was tried to a jury. Zwick was convicted on counts one. We will review the relevant facts adduced at trial regarding the alleged bribes. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943563.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. Two appellants were also convicted of money laundering. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating: Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Chief among the conditions 2 was the pre sale of twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom that Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so. 3 Without Roome's twenty contracts. The joint venture did not have enough pre sales to satisfy the conditions set by Freedom for the financing. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943563.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. appellants were also convicted of money laundering. following sentence. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating: Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Only if Twitty Chief and among the the others promised was to the meet certain of conditions. conditions pre sale twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so. The joint venture did not have enough pre sales to satisfy the conditions set by Freedom for the financing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53333A1C2A376D138825723B005F9EE5/$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-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5116.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James H. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Because there is a contract between the plaintiffs and the government. Because the government cannot demonstrate clear error in the trial court's conclusion that there was no prior material breach on the part of the plaintiffs. I This is a Winstar type case. See The conversion was based on two business plans. Approval was made contingent on the execution by the holding company of a Regulatory Capital Maintenance Agreement ( </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Brian C. With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the RAC is an agent of the United States. BACKGROUND I At the heart of this case is the administration of the AMAA. The AMAA was originally enacted during the Depression. Producers the principal purposes of which are to raise the price of agricultural products and to establish an orderly system for marketing them. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0463p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is the consolidation of two False Claims Act suits alleging fraud in the negotiation and execution of subcontracts relating to the construction of United States Navy Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyers. The destroyers are built primarily by two shipyards Bath Iron Works ( </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5137.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Et al. were Thomas M. Et al. was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel were Delisa M. This is a Winstar breach of contract case. The primary question on appeal is whether. A subsidiary question is whether there was a contractual or third party beneficiary relationship with the government that would confer standing on the shareholders of the thrift holding company. BACKGROUND I Morristown Federal Savings and Loan Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-7155a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/982164.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether the affirmative defenses of setoff. This appeal raises a question as to whether the creditor whose affirmative defenses were extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale received constitutionally adequate notice such that failure to object would result in a waiver of its affirmative defenses and its deemed consent to the transformation of the debtors' contract claims into unimpeachable accounts receivable. Were not extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale. Was constitutionally inadequate. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Folger acquired substantially all of the assets of three bankrupt companies through a bankruptcy auction </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/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5001.html">P.R. BURKE CORP. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053477p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Four groups are relevant to this appeal. Kemp was charged with two counts of honest services mail fraud for his role in an asset locator business that he created and operated with his friend. Holck and Umbrell were charged with eight counts of honest services wire fraud concerning their role in corrupting Kemp. Hawkins was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud. Hawkins The defendants were initially indicted on June 29. All references to the indictment refer to the superseding indictment. 2 1 White passed away before trial. 6 was charged with four counts of perjury stemming from false statements that Hawkins allegedly made while testifying before a grand jury investigating this case.3 B. Central to the government's case were tape recordings of scores of conversations between the defendants. These are but a selection of the charges included in the indictment. Kemp was charged with one count of conspiracy. Hawkins was charged with one count of conspiracy. Knight was charged with one count of conspiracy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1058.html">EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY V. DONALD RUMSFELD<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Linda S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Director.<span </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5123.html">FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>John F. With him on the brief was <U>David M. Appellants are owners of low income rental housing units financed by mortgage loans from the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0334p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan of six counts of extortion and one count of conspiring to commit extortion. Was convicted of one count of extortion and one count of conspiring to commit extortion. Kelley was a long time employee of Wayne County. Was an employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Kelley was the Assistant Wayne County CEO. Kelley was responsible for the operation of Wayne County's Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5136.html">KRYGOSKI CONSTRC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6183.htm">00-6183 -- MCCURDY GROUP, LLC V. AMERICAN BIOMEDICAL GROUP, INC. -- 05/21/2001<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Dave McCurdy is a former Oklahoma Congressman. McCurdy's intent was for MG </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051717P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The four contracts Tanko signed were embodied in a single document. Immediately below the signature line following the terms of the first contract was a line which stated </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/97-6910.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC. (11/15/1999, NO. 97-6910)<BR></A><BR> The specific issue we decide is whether the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the government's </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/97-6910.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. PEMCO AEROPLEX, INC. (11/15/1999, NO. 97-6910)<BR></A><BR> The specific issue we decide is whether the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) the government's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5075.html">EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINES, INC., 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-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5072.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Paul Martin Wolff. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief was Jeanne E. Of counsel was Brian L. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). I. FACTS This case is another of the many cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Such that NAB was required to share with FSLIC a percentage of the tax benefits received for covered asset losses. The exact percentage to be shared is in dispute. As of the date the Assistance Agreement was executed. Beverly Hills' covered assets were estimated at $786.1 million that is. FSLIC and its successor entity FDIC </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044546p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We will overrule United States v. I. The material facts are undisputed. The DuPont Newport Superfund Site is an industrial site in Delaware. The site was identified in the early 1980s as a potential threat to human health. It was placed on CERCLA's National Priorities List. The total cost to the government was $1. The District Court held the government's recovery of both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/94-3563.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TWITTY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. Two appellants were also convicted of money laundering. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating:<p> Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Chief among the conditions was the pre sale of twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. Freedom also required that 100% of the sales price on each condominium be paid to it before Freedom would release its hold on that condominium.<p> The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom that Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so.<p> Without Roome's twenty contracts. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/94-3563.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. TWITTY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. Two appellants were also convicted of money laundering. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating:<p> Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Chief among the conditions was the pre sale of twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. Freedom also required that 100% of the sales price on each condominium be paid to it before Freedom would release its hold on that condominium.<p> The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom that Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so.<p> Without Roome's twenty contracts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41709F1F6D1BA6F188256F770057529B/$file/0310390.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rene Blanco was convicted of various drug crimes. He further contends that a flight instruction should not have been given to the jury. We do not know whether there is additional Brady and Giglio material that the government has still not turned over to the defendant. Was harmless. Was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Rivera is a Mexican national who had previously been in the United States illegally but had received a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44FF343016CA587F88256C0C007E7068/$file/9956641.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a CERCLA dispute about whether the federal government can make a company that discharged pollutants into the soil at the government's direction and under its control during World War II. Which they were manufacturing as quickly as possible at several plants. Where there was no why. V Was for Victory 132 (1976). The war was not going well in 1942. 829 casualties just in the landing force.3 Then Senator Truman chaired hearings on why our country was unprepared to meet its critical need for rubber. To investigate and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001342.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankers is a private insurance company that sells and administers flood insurance policies through the National Flood Insurance Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042645p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the Insurance Contracts Mass Assets? . . . . . . . 13 IV. Capital claims that it properly established a basis in hundreds of insurance contracts that were terminated in that year. That it is therefore entitled to take a loss deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 165 to account for the cancellation of those contracts. That the zero basis found by the Court was inconsistent with the facts and hence clearly erroneous. We are convinced that Capital's process was thorough and professional. We are unwilling to affirm the Tax Court merely because we find some flaws in Capital's valuation process. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The existence of some problems in Capital's valuation process will not justify finding a zero basis in the lost contracts. By proposing alternative methods that will lead to what. Such a procedure is insufficient to reject Capital's claimed deductions. The Service has inform[ed] Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance organizations that the Service will challenge deductions for losses that relate to the termination of 4 individual customer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was Kevin M. On the brief were Peter D. CCP was the beneficiary of initiatives aimed at facilitating the involvement of small businesses in government contracting. Among the contracts awarded to CCP were contracts for hose assemblies. SP0750 99 C 2508 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1185.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph O. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were David M. Was on the brief for amicus curiae The Government of the Republic of Iceland. With him on the brief was Gary C. L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5050.html">ARIADNE FINANCIAL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5108.html">CALIFORNIA FEDERAL BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7128a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-3335.htm">00-3335 -- U.S. V. KOVAC -- 12/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Christopher Kovac entered a plea of guilty on charges of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1461.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Daniel G. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles W. Lockheed Martin Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-5405.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PIELAGO (2/17/1998, NO. 95-5405)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellants Maria Varona and Adrian Pielago were jointly indicted. She contends that the indictment against her should have been dismissed. We do not believe that there was any error involving the proffer agreement. We are convinced there was no plain error.</P> <P> Pielago challenges both his conviction and sentence. We find merit in his contention that his sentence is due to be reversed. Jose was arrested after surveillance indicated he was about to sell eight kilograms of cocaine that he had just received from Novaton to a drug dealer named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-5405.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PIELAGO (2/17/1998, NO. 95-5405)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Appellants Maria Varona and Adrian Pielago were jointly indicted. She contends that the indictment against her should have been dismissed. We do not believe that there was any error involving the proffer agreement. We are convinced there was no plain error.</P> <P> Pielago challenges both his conviction and sentence. We find merit in his contention that his sentence is due to be reversed. Jose was arrested after surveillance indicated he was about to sell eight kilograms of cocaine that he had just received from Novaton to a drug dealer named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1480.html">ESSEX ELECTRO ENGINEERS, V. RICHARD J. DANZIG<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Anthony H. The Board held that Essex was entitled to compensation for certain government caused delays to its contract performance. The Board held that Essex was not entitled to compensation. Including any that were necessary to correct the government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/042073P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that because Norris's guilty plea was never accepted. The potential prosecutions were distributed among several Assistant United States Attorneys ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5097.html">NICON, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Thomas D. During which the government never issued a notice to proceed and Nicon was allegedly forced to remain on ". Line height:200%'>Nicon is a small contractor from Tampa. Which suspended action on the contract before any of the repair work was commenced.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On April 24. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0762p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1836p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand for reconsideration of Isaac's motion to enforce the plea agreement he reached with the government. I Defendant Rupert Isaac was pulled over by the Virgin Islands police for a routine traffic violation. Isaac was named in a two count indictment charging him with (1) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. At the time of sentencing or within one (1) year thereof the government will . . . . . . b. When no motion was filed. The motion asserted that the pleas were entered in reliance on the government's commitment to file a S 5K1.1 motion and that the government had failed to honor that commitment in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1689.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 35. Line 4 change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4744-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: When a state is sued for allegedly impairing the contractual obligations of one of its political subdivisions even though it is not a signatory to the contract. The state will not be held liable for violating the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution unless plaintiffs produce evidence that the state's self interest rather than the general welfare of the public motivated the state's conduct. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof because the record of what and why the state has acted is laid out in committee hearings. The record of why the state acted is available. Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Plaintiffs are the Buffalo Teachers Union and a number of other unions in Buffalo. Defendants are the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (Buffalo Fiscal Authority. The comptroller concluded Buffalo was not in a position to resolve its fiscal woes on its own. The board would have powers and duties similar to those given to boards that already oversaw the budgets of other fiscally troubled municipalities in New York State. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel were Scott Austin and Elizabeth M. The breach was the elimination of the regulatory capital by the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. Is foreclosed by our recent decision in American Capital Corp. v. I. BACKGROUND CHTE is an irrevocable trust. Donald Crisp ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1359.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was Michael J. Who was also the Project Manager (PM) during the performance period. The ROICC did not have actual express or Resident Officer in Charge of Construction and Resident Officer in Charge of Contracts are used interchangeably in the record. 1 implied authority to direct the contractor to perform compensable contract changes. We affirm the Board decision on claim 3 because that claim is independently sustainable based on a differing site condition. 37 to the Board to determine whether the ROICC's directives on these claims were ratified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5436a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the briefs were Elaine D. The Final Rule Fails to </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/034174.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted the Government's motion and ruled that the Government was entitled to the benefit of a provision in the agreement that permitted the use of Scruggs' statements at trial. I. Scruggs is the cousin of co conspirators Eugene. Was sleeping inside. He was not included in the Friend brothers' second attempt to steal a truck on April 25. The Friend brothers' second attempt to hijack a truck by force was successful. Scruggs 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://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5076.html">JEROME A. MAHER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA4A050DCFAD553288256FFC00572DFC/$file/0335783.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Was on the brief. Was on the brief for appellee City of Vancouver. I Western States Paving Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0424p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL & EMERY. We conclude that the district court's implicit grant of summary judgment to DFA on that claim was in error. Is a milk marketing organization and the largest dairy farmer cooperative in the nation. DFA's primary purpose is marketing the raw. Southern Belle Southern Belle is a limited liability company formed in February 2002. Fifty percent of the voting interests in Southern Belle was owned by the Allen Family Limited Partnership ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-7093a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Thomas C. With him on the brief was Gaela K. Americable argues that the contract is void because it violates a statutory prohibition of contingent fee arrangements for the procurement of government ser vices. That Keefe is barred from bringing this suit by the District of Columbia's three year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims. The district court ruled that some of Keefe's claims were not time barred. We disagree that the contract is invalid as a matter of law. Paragraph 4 of the letter agreement states in relevant part: In the event that [Americable is] awarded a contract to install a CATV system on a U.S. Government installation 1 The first agreement between the parties was executed on September 24. We will refer only to the more recent agree ment. In the event the Government Installation is closed or [Am ericable] ceases to provide services to said Government Installation [Americable's] obligation to pay The Keefe Company shall cease. Keefe was to receive 2 percent of the gross sale price. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BEB27A0944E12B2888256E5A00707AAB/$file/0055328.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael W. Of counsel on the brief were Michael A. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Delfa Castillo. We hold that the Court of Federal Claims improperly granted summary judgment for the government on the claim that the acquirer could have sold the acquired thrifts for a higher price if the thrifts had been allowed to continue treating their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/801F57B52029863A88257020006E31AD/$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-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/536E1A6274AA924C88256A170062069B/$file/0055328.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C22C6168E456491788256E5A00707BE9/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed 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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/98-5222.htm">98-5222 -- OXY USA, INC. V. BABBITT -- 10/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5130.html">D & N BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Melvin C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stuart E. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeanne E. N has not demonstrated that there was a contract that could have been breached by FIRREA. Which was lengthy and had many attachments. Contained no specific reference to a commitment for long term amortization and gave no hint that assurances were requested against changes in the law or that anything was requested other than approval of the merger under the then current regulations. </p> <p class=MsoBlockText>Nothing about the merger transaction suggests that plaintiff was looking for a guarantee. That the documents and the testimony support its assertion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It also argues that the circumstances involved in its merger were analogous to those in other cases in which this court and the Supreme Court found that the parties had formed a valid contract and were entitled to damages as a result of the passage of FIRREA.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Finally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE5E9CE16D0D776F88256A8B0059D05A/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed 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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1227.html">BURNSIDE-OTT AVIATION V. DALTON<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001040.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that Southern's interference was justified or privileged because Southern acted for the purpose of protecting its own </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5037a.html">USA V. MICROSOFT CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5134.html">AINS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Kara L. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>James L. Cl. 522 (2003).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We find that the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that the Mint is a non appropriated funds instrumentality ( NAFI ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because Congress has not waived sovereign immunity to allow breach of contract suits against NAFIs other than in a few statutorily enumerated exceptions. Because the Mint i </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49B2333858F888188257036004D1C22/$file/0335697.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. III is substituted for his predecessor. William McDonald is substituted for his predecessor. Is AMENDED as follows: We revoke the content of Footnote 1 in its entirety and substitute the following language in its place: MID also asserted in its briefing on appeal that it has a vested statutory right to credits under federal reclamation law. MID's counsel conceded that the government's obligations to MID under federal reclamation law were the same as its obligations under the contract and that MID's statutory claim is subject to the same six year statute of limitations as its breach of contract claim. Because the statutes of limitations on both claims were trig MINIDOKA IRRIGATION DIST. v. Notwithstanding employees' assertion that their claims were not time barred under a continuing violation theory because a new and separate breach of ERISA arose each time they were entitled to a reimbursement payment). (2) Judges McKeown and Gould have voted to deny Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5043.html">DUREIKO JOSEPH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David W. We hold that the trial court improperly held that the government s actions allegedly constituting a breach of its contract with Pine Isle were ". That Pine Isle was collaterally estopped from disputing the discretionary nature of the government s actions. That the trial court correctly held that Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were legally inadequate. The undersigned hereby certifies and warrants that he is the owner or authorized agent of the owner or authorized agent of the owner [of] the [Pine Isle Mobile Home Park] . . . which has been declared uninhabitable under Chapter 17C of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Contractor shall preserve and protect all existing structures which have not been designated for demolition. Since under the Stafford Act the United States was immune from suit. Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were not viable. Since a claim for breach of contract was the appropriate remedy. The alleged government s actions were not authorized by an enactment of Congress. </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tracey L. Of counsel was Maureen A. The trial court ruled there was no significant prejudice to Bannum. Past performance on other government contracts was the most important criteria. The CEFs are </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5018.html">EL-SHEIKH MOHAMMED V. US<BR></A><BR> On the brief were David M. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The sole question in this appeal is whether the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed. Therefore reverse and remand.<p> I<p> Non appropriated fund instrumentalities (NAFIs) are federal government entities whose </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief. Were on brief. That is. The results of the 1991 probe must have come as something of a shock. Rioux's final report specifically noted that there were no problems with Dantran's fringe benefit payment practices. The timing could not have been worse. The kingdom was lost). Wilkinson's final report pressed for debarment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1670.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Should form the continuation of the paragraph that currently is at page 6. Were on brief for appellant Penobscot Indian Nation and third party defendants appellees. Were on brief for appellee and cross appellant Key Bank of Maine. Were on brief for appellee Michael Marcello. Taintor & Abbott was on brief for defendants appellees and cross appellants. P.A. was on brief for defendant appellee and cross appellant. Hewey with whom Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon was on brief for appellees Consumers Water Company. It is not apparent from the record that the results of the investigation were set out in writing or were made known to the public. It is clear. The complaint alleged that the two Settlement Agreements signed by PIN and the Appellees were void because they did not receive the Secretary of the Interior's approval pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Together with the affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5070.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were John C. Of counsel was Thomas G. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Like others that have reached this court in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Because the failing thrifts were unattractive investment prospects on their own. Acquiring institutions such as CalFed were no longer permitted to include supervisory goodwill as part of their regulatory capital. They were required to write down their supervisory goodwill over a five year period. CalFed was one of the institutions that filed a breach of contract action based on the FIRREA provisions regarding supervisory goodwill. Would have produced substantial profits if CalFed had been able to retain them. Holding that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to foreseeability. Was foreseeable. (2) that CalFed had failed to prove that the ARMs and other assets were sold because of the breach. (3) that the method of calculating damages advocated by CalFed was too speculative to serve as the basis for a damages award. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021977.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We must consider Worldwide Security's appeal in light of the evidence developed at trial rather than the summary judgment record that was previously before us. 111 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5345a.html">A & S CNCL OIL CO V. LADER PHILIP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5013.html">TOTAL MANAGEMENT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034168p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the City is not preempted from requiring parties receiving tax increment financing to sign a labor neutrality agreement. The URA is one of Pittsburgh's redevelopment authorities that serves as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2544.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995051.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The calculation of his sentence.1 We will affirm his conviction and sentence in all aspects. An understanding of the facts of the case is a necessary foundation for a discussion of the issues he raises. We have jurisdiction over Helbling's appeal over his conviction under 28 U.S.C. We have considered both his counseled and pro se submissions. We have denied Helbling's motions to file further supplemental briefs and appendices. 2 embezzlement of employee pension plan funds from an ERISA covered plan (18 U.S.C. The mail fraud counts were dismissed during trial.2 The jury convicted Helbling of twenty seven of the remaining twenty nine counts. Helbling filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the indictment was not timely. Helbling argued to the District Court that the waiver was invalid because he had been coerced into signing it by fraud and misconduct. That the government witnesses were lying. The witnesses explained that Helbling was the president. The plan was funded exclusively by Micro Products. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20ADFFEE69DE724C88256E1C0004F46B/$file/0216696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the subject of a criminal investigation because the government suspects that Lion falsified documents related to USDA inspections of its raisins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND The California raisin industry is highly competitive. At the time this action was commenced. Raisin prices were at a 15year low and the success or failure of contract bids hinged on price differentials of a fraction of a cent per pound. Lion is the largest independent handler of California raisins in the state. Lion is governed by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The marketing order requires that raisin handlers have their products inspected by USDA once when they are received from producers. Again before they are sold to the consumer. 7 C.F.R. §§ 989.58 989.59. The original of the Line Check Sheet is retained by USDA and a carbonless copy is left with the handler.1 Information from the Line Check Sheets is summarized on USDA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955446.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was involved in an auto accident. Because Trunzo was operating the vehicle within the scope of his government employment. The United States was substituted as defendant in the action.1 Judgment was entered against the United States in the amount of $164. The facts were uncontroverted. To require substitution of the United States as a party in a civil suit against a government driver for a traffic accident occurring while the employee was operating the vehicle within the scope of employment. 1 based on its contention that the government had hired the rented auto and was thus excluded from coverage under the policy. Was granted. The government's motion was denied. The sole issue before this court is whether the United States is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972316.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Having determined that Baumback was both a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3112.html">ELOISE FOMBY-DENSON V. DEPT. OF THE ARMY<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984776.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On page 22 the second full paragraph is deleted. Is replaced with the following: Recognizing. That certain costs associated with performing the contract might properly have been passed along to the Army. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. CSDC were convicted on all counts of the superseding indictment against them. The facts are these. Jesse is not a party to the present appeal. 3 tests. Luis was the President and sole owner of CSDC. Time and materials contracts awarded by the Army are signed and administered by a Contracting Officer employed by the Army. Testified that a time and materials contract is one in which a private contractor is compensated for labor based upon fixed hourly rates and reimbursed for the materials required to perform the work based upon the cost of acquisition. Testified at trial that his understanding was that CSDC would be reimbursed on materials purchased in connection with the Contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3107a.html">USA V. JONES OTIS M.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4217.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is granted. The Clerk is directed to reissue the Order & Judgment as a published decision. The published opinion is attached to this order. A default judgment was entered against Nightime on January 20. Some of these insurance payments were made pursuant to contracts between Nightime and various insurance companies ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991305.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That material should not have been factored into the sentence. We will remand for that purpose. After he became aware that he was under investigation. The sentence reached was based. The defendant's sentence was later reduced to 126 months. Was immunized by his cooperation agreement and section 1B1.8. Although the cooperation agreement </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C163DBCDB1856F7988256FE300817013/$file/0335697.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. III is substituted for his predecessor. William McDonald is substituted for his predecessor. Ruling that MID's contract claim is barred by the sixyear statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). (2) the government's repudiation was anticipatory and could not trigger the statute of limitations. DOI 4195 ated the contract by March of 1985.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-1094.htm">97-1094 -- U.S. V. BRYE -- 06/16/1998<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Which was unknown to either Garner or defendant. Defendant was taken into state custody for violation of state law where he remained until early 1996. He was not charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of a firearm until February 14. Based on the long delay between the time the offense was committed and the date of the indictment. </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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003070.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both LSS and WHO are non profit organizations which provide community services to residents of Westmoreland County in western Pennsylvania. LSS was selected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive grant moneys under the federal Supportive Housing Program. Because WHO was one of LSS's largest creditors. WHO defended on the ground that LSS's interest in the Supportive Housing Program grant relationship was not property of LSS's bankruptcy estate and thus did not trigger a fiduciary duty on WHO's part. We hold that LSS's interest in the grant r elationship with HUD is excluded from the definition of </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0099p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this case we are required to decide the constitutionality of Tennessee's statute making available the purchase of automobile license plates with a </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/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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/9186B7AE7919E21A8825714700001F86/$file/0410457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called on to interpret and give effect to a less than precise plea agreement between the United States and two criminal defendants. Transfiguracion and Dao were both charged with conspiracy to import over 500 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/012603.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court erred in finding that the government's decision to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror was not motivated by discriminatory intent. Believes that the judgment should be reversed to the extent that it imposed the sentence and thus is filing a separate opinion dissenting from the affirmance of the sentence. B. Milan's Crimes as a Public Official Milan was elected a member of the Camden city council on November 7. Was elected its president on January 1. Milan was elected mayor of Camden. A position to which he was sworn in on July 1. A government certified minority owned business enterprise which was to compete for government contracts on Natale's behalf. Milan arranged to have the title of a 1990 Chevrolet Lumina Van transferred to his fiance from Nick's Towing. As in the other instances we have recounted with respect to improper benefits. The owner of the Camden office building in which Milan's mayoral campaign headquarters was located. To draft a fake lease to demonstrate that monthly lease payments were due from Milan's campaign 7 even though Milan's campaign was using Willis's office space without charge. </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/01-5103.html">HERCULES INCORPORATED 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-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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-15124.opn.html">NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><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/feb2003/01-15124.opn.html">NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115124.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a surety on construction contract performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of a subcontractor has superior rights to retained contract balances in the possession of the general contractor when the general contractor completed the performance and has unsatisfied claims against the defaulting subcontractor. The performance bond and payment bond documents for the Winston Park project were standard forms issued by the American Institute of Honorable Roger Vinson. Sitting by designation. 2 * Architects.1 The performance bond and payment bond documents for the West Brickell project were drafted by National Fire with language that materially differed from the Winston Park bonds. Both projects were behind schedule by this time. There was some discussion about National Fire procuring a completion contractor and about the possibility that Fortune could complete construction. The West Brickell project was near completion. Negotiations were still ongoing when. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concerned 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/99opinions/99-1343.html">RICHARD J. DANZIG V. AEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ellen M. With her on the brief was <u>Robert G. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the default termination was improper. It was apparent that AEC was behind schedule. AEC was having financial difficulties with its surety. Those problems were delaying the progress of the work. Although for reasons that are unclear from the record. The Navy asked why the project was progressing so slowly. AEC advised the Navy that it was unable to make progress on the project because the surety would not release funds from the project </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0745n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harris and Schwentker were romantically involved. Owners who were loyal to him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5005.html">LASALLE TALMAN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Will &. Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John H. Wallman</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Facts Appellant PDS is a Virginia corporation engaged in the business of preparing topographic maps from aerial photography and ground surveys. Appellant Webb was employed by PDS as the photogrammetric manager during this time period. The contractors were then paid according to the actual number of hours worked. After which additional approval was required. Which were then used to prepare the PDS invoices for the VDOT jobs. Would have resulted in PDS leaving </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5138.html">MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert L. Of counsel was <u>Glenn S. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Marc Johnston</u>. The government has announced that it will not be able to begin such disposal until at least 2010. The government moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the only way the utilities could proceed was by filing an administrative claim with a contracting officer under the contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59D214A006E35E2688256EFD0057F928/$file/0335142.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The County weatherization department conducts an audit to determine what specific services are required. The County awards the job to the contractor who submitted the lowest bid for the particular combination of services unless one of several exceptions applies (e.g. the lowest bidder exceeded its bonding limit or the weatherization department determines that the job is appropriate for the County's welfare to work crew). The County's stated reason for terminating Stephens was that he falsified weatherization audits. These charges were fabricated by Judy Swendsen and Diane Hansen. Were biased against him on account of his age and race. At the time that he was fired. Stephens was the oldest employee and the only black in the County weatherization department.3 2 One set of vendor contracts ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1077.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PSC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant Fajardo Velez. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5188.html">CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P., ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>David M. </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>This case presents the question whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment as to the government s liability for breach of contract solely in order to create a predicate for suit to recover damages in the Court of Federal Claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that district courts do not have such jurisdiction because the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The predicate judgment was void.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It follows that the Court of Federal Claims was not bound by this earlier judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>On the merits. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We agree that the contract between the government and the appellants was unenforceable against the government because of a material breach by the appellants predating the government s alleged breach. </p> <h2 style='line height:200%'><span style='text decoration:none. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1067.html">TRIAX PACIFIC V. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1885p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the equipment being used at each well site was in high demand on the island. Were hired to perform security and maintenance service at the wells 24 hours a day. Water was pumped into storage tanks and then into pressurized distribution lines. Which was apparently owned. By early October the new system was in place. The wells themselves were located in remote areas. Until several employees were threatened by persons who were attempting to steal the generators and pumps. WAPA acknowledges that providing the security was hazardous work. Gardiner had previously worked for WAPA and was already doing work for WAPA on another project. Gardiner was told at this initial meeting that WAPA would be reimbursed by the federal government for the payments to Gardiner. There was no written contract. Gardiner and his crews were resourceful and highly successful. Rounsaville wrote that the </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/99opinions/99-5098.html">OMV MEDICAL, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Frank K. On the brief were <u>David . Of counsel on the brief were <u>Clarence D. With him on the brief was <u>Deborah L. The award of that contract was flawed. The award of that contract was flawed. Because the Air Force analyzed the submitted proposals in an arbitrary and irrational manner. </p> <p ALIGN= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-5446.man.html">ABRAMS V. TRUNZO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Abrams v. Was involved in an auto accident. Because Trunzo was operating the vehicle within the scope of his government employment. The United States was substituted as defendant in the action.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-7195a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Charles L. The OIG released a highly critical report that was later described in a Washington Post article. The only important fact about the OIG's audit is that the OIG never offered Trifax an opportu nity to comment on the unfavorable report before making it public. That </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/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7195a.html">TRIFAX CORP., V. D.C.<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was Charles L. The OIG released a highly critical report that was later described in a Washington Post article.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>According to the OIG report. The only important fact about the OIG's audit is that the OIG never offered Trifax an opportu nity to comment on the unfavorable report before making it public.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>After the report's release. Summary judgment will not lie ... if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Persons whose future employment pros pects have been impaired by government defamation ". That would have unquestionably constituted a deprivation of liber ty.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Conceding that it was not formally debarred. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> Trifax claims to have suffered ". Did not also constitute a deprivation simply because the harm was reputa tional.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For exactly this reason. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0430p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and 155 counts of money laundering. Contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Jamieson further alleges that the government was guilty of misconduct in making certain prejudicial statements in closing argument The Honorable William W Schwarzer. He contends that he is entitled to be re sentenced under United States v. The marketing of viaticals is legal. The record establishes that Jamieson was aware of the risk of investing in fraudulent viatical policies. The viator's date of HIVpositive or AIDS diagnosis actually preceded the date the policy was issued by the insurance company. Jamieson gave testimony under oath to the Ohio Department of Commerce's Division of Securities that Liberte Capital never reviewed the policies it purchased to determine whether they were fraudulent because (contrary to his earlier description of how viators obtain fraudulent policies) he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Robin H. Of counsel was Michael R. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Chi S. The court overturned the ruling of the United States Customs Service ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/92-2929.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. NEDER (12/10/1999, NO. 92-2929)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P><CENTER>ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES</CENTER> </P> <P> This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Was harmless error.<A HREF= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/92-2929.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. NEDER (12/10/1999, NO. 92-2929)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P><CENTER>ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES</CENTER> </P> <P> This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Was harmless error.<A HREF= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-5446.man.html">ABRAMS V. TRUNZO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Abrams v. Was involved in an auto accident. Because Trunzo was operating the vehicle within the scope of his government employment. The United States was substituted as defendant in the action.<a href= </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzMDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1307_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By signing a plea agreement reciting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1959p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first question is whether the parties entered into a legally enforceable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5168.html">ADMIRAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Alan G. Florida.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Lynn F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Line height:200%'>This is a <u>Winstar</u> related breach of contract case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>United States v. Admiral could not recover because it was not harmed by the government s breach.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For the reasons set forth below. Admiral and Haven entered into an acquisition agreement under which Admiral agreed to contribute $6.4 million in real estate and cash in order to bring Haven into compliance with the Bank Board s minimum capital requirements.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The agreement was conditioned on the Bank Board s giving Adm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1010.html">FRANKLIN PAVKOV CONSTRUCTION CO V. JAMES G. ROCHE<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5146o.html">MARATHON OIL CO V. US<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Steven J. With him on the brief were. With him on the brief was Craig Wyman.<p> <p> Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims<p> <p> Judge James T. It is<p> ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be granted for the limited purpose of clarifying this court's opinion.<p> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the previous opinion of the court in this appeal is withdrawn. The new opinion accompanies this order.<p> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc is declined.<p> <p> <p> The mandate of the court will issue on May 20. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.<p> <p> This is a contract dispute between a lessor. Because the moratorium legislation was not the operative cause of Marathon's failure to obtain the required permits. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed. <p> BACKGROUND<p> This case has a rather complicated legal and factual background. The Secretary of the Interior ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/98-5222.htm">98-5222 -- OXY U.S. INC. V. MOBIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING U.S. INC. -- 10/23/2000<BR></A><BR> Shell and OXY asserted that the orders were barred by the six year statute of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-6910.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PEMCO AEROPLEX (2/8/1999, NO. 97-6910)<BR></A><BR> Have contracted to perform high level maintenance of C 130 aircraft for the United States Air Force (Air Force). A government contractor submits a form advising the government that it is holding certain government property in excess of its government contract. The wings it purchased from the government were actually newer model wings and worth much more than the scrap value Pemco had listed in the inventory schedule. Holding that: (1) the dismissal was with prejudice as to the government's claim regarding a false claim under the False Claims Act because the government did not allege that Pemco submitted documents that constituted a false </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5F97BD79E90FBBA88257059004D04D3/$file/0316962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Conservation District was directed to contract with the Secretary of the Interior to finance the construction and operation of the project. This master contract was executed in 1972. The irrigation district subcontracts were executed in 1983. Following the Secretary's apportionment of the rights to purchase project water.2 Each irrigation district contracted with the Conservation District and with the United States to receive a particular We have previously discussed the history and statutory framework of the Central Arizona Project at length. We therefore briefly describe the project's water allocation framework only as necessary to decide this appeal. 2 The specific method selected for allocation of project water was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-5294a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1442.html">H. T. JOHNSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY V. ALL-STATE CONSTRUCTION<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Michael Evan Jaffe</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question of whether the Navy was entitled to withhold progress payments from All State.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Navy offers two justifications for the withholding: (1) that the government is entitled to withhold progress payments when a default termination is imminent. (2) that the government is entitled to withhold progress payments pursuant to its common law right of set off and also pursuant to section 1.12.2.b. of the contract.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We disagree with the Navy s first theory. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The extension was based. On the unavailability of the site during a portion of that period.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The project was not completed by the extended completion date.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1846p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees and costs to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-6910.man.html">UNITED STATES V. PEMCO AEROPLEX (2/8/1999, NO. 97-6910)<BR></A><BR> Have contracted to perform high level maintenance of C 130 aircraft for the United States Air Force (Air Force). A government contractor submits a form advising the government that it is holding certain government property in excess of its government contract. The wings it purchased from the government were actually newer model wings and worth much more than the scrap value Pemco had listed in the inventory schedule. Holding that: (1) the dismissal was with prejudice as to the government's claim regarding a false claim under the False Claims Act because the government did not allege that Pemco submitted documents that constituted a false </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA1F2864F834111D88256E5A00707C5F/$file/9935188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argues that it is not 11158 barred from bringing a quiet title action against the United States on property subject to a government loan. Which was later subsumed into the Rural Housing Service (collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014055.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MASON Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Mason was tried and convicted by a jury on one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Mason appeals his conviction primarily on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and that the government's evidence at trial constructively amended the indictment. I. The facts relevant to Mason's wire fraud conviction (Count One of the indictment) are as follows. Mason was a cotton broker in Fort Mill. Who was the sole owner of Gibbs Special Assets. Though the details of this agreement changed over time and were the subject of some dispute at trial. The essential thrust was that Performance arranged transactions between cotton suppliers and textile mills and GSA financed these transactions. Reid never told Gibbs that Mason was the owner of Performance. Gibbs testified that the cotton shipped to mills by Performance belonged to him because he was the person who had paid for it. Bob Ollis (an executive who was in charge of monitoring the cotton deals for Gibbs) discussed the idea of expanding the relationship between GSA and Performance to include the financing of larger cotton transactions (by the pound rather than by the truckload). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1879767707275B3088256E5A00707CC1/$file/9950730.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court nevertheless ordered restitution at the behest of a private party who claimed it was damaged by the defendants' criminal misconduct. FACTS Defendants were convicted on charges arising out of the payment of kickbacks during the years 1991 to 1994 on contracts involving the maintenance and repair of three United States Navy aircraft carriers based at the North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado. Defendant Stanley was. Who was responsible for overseeing Pac Ship's contracts with both subcontractors and Navy. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1936396C34F5693988256AC5005BC4EC/$file/9950730.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court nevertheless ordered restitution at the behest of a private party who claimed it was damaged by the defendants' criminal misconduct. FACTS Defendants were convicted on charges arising out of the payment of kickbacks during the years 1991 to 1994 on contracts involving the maintenance and repair of three United States Navy aircraft carriers based at the North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado. Defendant Stanley was. Who was responsible for overseeing Pac Ship's contracts with both subcontractors and Navy. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Were on brief. We have no detailed account of these debriefing sessions. The appellant states in a declaration (filed below in connection with his motion for an evidentiary hearing) that he furnished the government with whatever information he possessed concerning wrongdoing at the financial institutions with which he was associated. After the indictment was returned and the appellant entered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBCE2008CCBBBD1388256AAA007EEDD1/$file/9935188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argues that it is not 11158 barred from bringing a quiet title action against the United States on property subject to a government loan. Which was later subsumed into the Rural Housing Service (collectively referred to as </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5034.html">MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiff appellant McDonnell Douglas Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Elizabeth A. Ferrell</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John W. Argued for plaintiff appellent General Dynamics Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David A. Perrelli</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964170.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the government did not prove that the payments he made to a city official were actually bribes. That the evidence was sufficient to convict Jennings of bribery. Jennings also contends that a new trial is required because the jury instructions misstated the </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5111.html">GREENBRIAR V. US<BR></A><BR> On the brief was <U>R. With him on the brief was <U>David . Because the trial court correctly determined that the United States was not in privity of contract with the Owners and therefore could not be held liable for breach of such contracts. Correctly determined that the Owners takings claim is not ripe for review. The petition for class certification is moot.</P> <P ALIGN= </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1407.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are engaged in exporting meat products and animal hides. Colorado office routinely altered export certificates issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to avoid obtaining replacement certificates for which the company should have paid a fee. Reasoning that Conagra's alleged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1901.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy</SPAN> was on the brief for appellant.<SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was William W. Of counsel on the brief were David S. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. Of counsel was Jerome A. I. BACKGROUND This case is another of the many Winstar cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2989_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The practice of favoring close family members or friends with lucrative government contracts is hardly a new one. It is usually forbidden. Which in turn was receiving federal monies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Moore argues primarily that she had no duty to disclose the fact that she was her mother's daughter to the City (and hence to the federal government). WH was a non profit organization that Cameron established to carry out neighborhood social programs. It was largely funded by HUD block grants awarded by the City of Milwaukee. Cameron ran for and was elected to be an alderwoman on Milwaukee's Common Council. Although the City is responsible for awarding and administering particular grants. After a block grant is awarded to an organization. If all is in order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Relator Yuhasz was employed as a laboratory manager for Brush at Brush's bronze alloy manufacturing facility in Lorain. Other specialty alloys </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Jay E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John C. Of counsel was Scott Damelin. Of counsel on the brief was Jane K. With him on the brief were Martin P. With him on the brief was Robert L. With him on the brief was Timothy R. With him on the brief was David Jimenez Ekman. 2Joseph M. Background This action is one of several filed by the nation's nuclear electric utilities in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages arising from the government's failure to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5018.html">ENERGY CAPITAL CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/981215.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants argue that the instruments that they offered to investors were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was James S. Of counsel on the brief were P. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Mark A. With him on the brief was Andrew D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul J. Phase I involves </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5111.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-1530.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. ROCKWELL INT'L CORP.<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court was correct to reject Rockwell's proposed reading of the plea agreement. The government seized a very large volume of documents and a special grand jury was empaneled to investigate Rockwell's operation of Rocky Flats. The complaint in the Stone Suit was filed under seal and served on the United States but not on Rockwell. Because the government sought and was granted extensions to keep the complaint under seal. Rockwell was not given notice of the Stone Suit until November 1990. Even after the complaint was unsealed. As to all environmental matters at Rocky Flats which are presently known to the Department of Justice or the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is assertedly autonomous and does not perform government contract work. Is not subject to the reporting requirements. The Secretary of Labor is authorized to enforce nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations on parties to government contracts. A covered contractor must </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344.htm">99-3344 -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Ronald LaHue were convicted by a jury for violations of the Medicare Antikickback Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-14322.man.html">WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)<BR></A><BR> </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1080.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Shlomo D. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was John T. With him on the brief were David P. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10) and 41 U.S.C. § 607(g)(1)(A). Under which LSI was to provide aircraft maintenance services at Sheppard Air Force Base. LSI's predecessor contractor was Lockheed Martin. A defined benefit plan obligates an employer to spend whatever is necessary to continue to provide its employees with an agreed upon level of benefit. A defined benefit plan thereby ensures 06 1080 2 that employees will continue to receive the same level of benefit (here health coverage). Although the future costs of providing benefits under a definedbenefit plan are not known with certainty at the time of contracting. That the Price Adjustment Clause was therefore inapplicable. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10) and 41 U.S.C. § 607(g)(1)(A). 06 1080 3 II. DISCUSSION The principal issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in its construction of the Price Adjustment Clause. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5156.html">MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant in 99 5159.<span style= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-14322.man.html">WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)<BR></A><BR> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5136.html">SOUTHFORK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-3021a.html">USA V. DEAN DEBORAH GORE<BR></A><BR> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1028.html">ADVANCED MATERIALS V. PERRY<BR></A><BR> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5040.html">GOULD, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</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/00opinions/00-1171.html">ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, V. DEPT OF DEFENSE<BR></A><BR> Argued</p> <p class=MsoNormal>for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-7180a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John G. With him on the brief were Richard L. These political complexities were compounded when Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou resigned because of illness. A new administration took office while relocation negotiations were underway. For reasons that are not en tirely clear from the record. The new administration was unfavorably disposed to the consortium's project. That it was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The district court permitted Marra limited jurisdictional discovery including the right to depose senior Greek government officials to determine whether the FSIA exception was applicable. While we agreed with the district court that the information sought from the Greek officials was potentially relevant to determining the validity of the Greek government's FSIA defense. Lest the evaluation of the immunity itself encroach unduly on the benefits the immunity was to ensure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5021a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. Inc. ( </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/01opinions/01-1350.html">RAYTHEON COMPANY V. THOMAS WHITE<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014026.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Incorporated (All Ports) were convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles on the United States Munitions List (Munitions List) without a license and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Bing Sun was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/003147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal revolves around a loan that was made by Brenton First National Bank (the Bank) to Audio Odyssey. Sitting by designation. 1 Ann Dincer (Audio Odyssey and the Dincers are referred to collectively as Audio Odyssey). The loan was guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Insofar as is possible. The Dincers executed an SBA Note which stated: This promissory note is given to secure a loan which SBA is making or in which it is participating and. This instrument is to be construed and (when SBA is the Holder or a party in interest) enforced in accordance with applicable Federal law. The Authorization and Loan Agreement provides that it is subject to the provisions of the 1978 Guaranty Agreement. The loan was secured with. Who was responsible for managing the SBA's guaranteed loan program in the eastern 29 counties of Iowa. That it was overdrawn on its checking account. Bradley also told Hoffman that Audio Odyssey was going to hold a sale that weekend and Bradley feared that the profits would be applied to the withholding tax Audio Odyssey owed rather than to the loan from the Bank. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1146p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coyle was the Chief Financial Officer for Health Corporation of America (HCA) from December 1986 through October 1990. Was in the business of designing. HCA was awarded three contracts by the United Paper Convertors Local 286 Welfare Trust Fund to administer plans providing health care benefits to members of the Paper Convertors Local 286. These are employee benefit plans subject to Title I. The duration of these particular contracts is unclear from the record although it appears that the contracts were renewed prior to their eventual termination in 1990. The companies will be referred to collectively as HCA. Which were calculated at a fixed rate per covered employee per month. All premium payments not disbursed to participating physicians or laboratories or retained as administrative costs were to be returned to the Fund. There was no similar provision for refund of surplus premiums in the Pennsylvania dental contract although the contracts appear to have functioned similarly in all respects. There was no refund of any premiums under any of the contracts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1809.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cranwell with whom Cranwell & O'Connell was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The independent contractor is required to pay its employees certain minimum wages and fringe benefits and to meet certain minimum standards of safety in working conditions.2 The failure of a contractor to comply with the SCA and the regulations promulgated thereunder3 may result in liability and debarment from contracting with the government for three years.4 Pursuant to the set aside program for minority contractors of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. 5 Vigilantes was awarded ten contracts to provide security 1. 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq. 2. 41 U.S.C. 351(a)(1). The complaint was amended in 1984 to include an allegation that Vigilantes failed to pay certain service employees overtime pay as required under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.7 Based on these violations. The DOL claimed that appellants were not only liable for the amounts owed. These tripartite agreements were between the government agencies as the contracting agencies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On counsel were W. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Walter F. This is a post award bid protest case. PGBA filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking to have the award of the contract to WPS set aside. Rule that PGBA was entitled to recover its reasonable bid preparation and proposal costs. TRICARE is a military health care benefits program that provides health care benefits to dependents of active duty service members and to retired service members and their dependents. TRICARE is administered within the Department of Defense by TMA. The TRICARE system was divided into eleven geographical PGBA filed its first motion for reconsideration after the court issued its original order under seal. TMA will consolidate the MCS contracts from seven contracts covering eleven regions to three contracts covering three regions. This new contract is called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5092a.html">JAMES C. WOOD, JR V. AMER INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN<BR></A><BR> II argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1373.html">REFLECTON V. DALTON<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1204.html">PATRICK ROEDLER V. DEPT OF ENERGY<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="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1230.html">INLAND STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel were <U>Michael H. With him on the brief was <U>David M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Stephen J. Of counsel were <U>Bernd G. With him on the brief were <U>M. Usinor is a French company with domestic and international steel producing facilities. Usinor was obligated under the PACS instruments to pay to the French government the face value of the PACS. Usinor was obligated to pay interest at a rate of 0.1%. Usinor was to make principal payments and supplementary interest payments from its profits in amounts to be set by the French Minister of Economy. <U>See</U> Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations: Certain Steel Products From France. The FIS instruments were bonds issued to the French government s Steel Intervention Fund (<U>i.e.</U>. Usinor was obligated under the FIS instruments to pay the FIS interest at a rate of 0.1% plus an additional percentage dependent upon Usinor s profits. The first two of which were to be made by the French government. If the instruments were debt on issuance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. as principal and Capitol Indemnity Corporation as surety to recover on a bond issued pursuant to the Miller Act. 40 U.S.C. 3131 3134.(1) PMR subsequently filed for bankruptcy and proceedings against it were stayed. Accepting Capitol's defense that Cortez's claims were not within the scope of the bond's coverage. Capitol cross appeals on the ground that the court erroneously rejected its alternative defense that Cortez was a joint venturer with PMR and therefore ineligible for bonding protection under the Miller Act. Because the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) At the time the bond and associated contract were executed. The Miller Act was codified at 40 U.S.C. 270a 270e. This order and judgment will cite to the statute's current codification. <hr> language of bond and its associated contract unambiguously supports Cortez's position. The contract was an indefinite quantity contract. (2) meaning the government was required to purchase an agreed minimum amount of materials and services. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5062.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344a.htm">99-3344A -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024863.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The victims were never informed that Demus. Nor were the victims ever informed that. While he was supposed to be assembling engines. Zehrbach was actually serving time in prison for a prior bankruptcy fraud conviction. Were indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of mail fraud. Both defendants were convicted by jury trial. ZEHRBACH 3 tend that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. We conclude that: (1) the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. (2) Defendants were not entitled to a new trial. (3) the district court's evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion and. Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions and contend that they are entitled to a new trial. Defendants' fraudulent scheme was facilitated using Light Power Engine Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1469.html">LOCKHEED V. WALKER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep27/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Ernest M. With him on the brief were Eileen J. This is the second appeal in an action by John Greene ( </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1206.html">SAUER INCORPORATED V. RICHARD J. DANZIG<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>James W. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Sauer was to complete the inside wall and ceiling construction. Liquidated damages for late completion were set at $1725 per day. </p> <p ALIGN= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1483.html">E R MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION V. DANZIG RICHARD J.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were David M. Circuit Judge.<p> <p> <p> This is a government contracts case. The facts are not in dispute. The only issue for decision is one of law: whether the government is liable for unabsorbed home office overhead costs of a subcontractor. Whose work is delayed by the government. When the prime contractor is not delayed in the completion of its contract with the government. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the government is only liable for a subcontractor's unabsorbed home office overhead costs when the prime contractor is delayed by the government in performance of its contract. The issue is whether this cause of action is barred by a doctrine that emanates from the </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Bernard A. Of counsel on the brief was Robin S. With her on the brief were Robert A. Of counsel on the brief was Douglas W. With him on the brief were Donald J. Of counsel on the brief was Robert G. Because DESC's price setting mechanism was consistent with the applicable regulations. We reverse the decisions of the trial court holding that DESC's practice was illegal. I. BACKGROUND DESC is the principal purchaser of military fuel for the United States Department of Defense. The reference prices to which the price adjustments were tied were drawn from market publications. Which is published by the Department of Energy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-5092a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5436a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-5436a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Virginia in support of appellants Stephen A. Maurice Baskin and Glenn Taubman were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States. With her on the brief were Laurence J. Siegel were on the brief for amicus curiae New York Thruway Authority in support of appellees. Katherine Brewer and Jonathan Cuneo were on the brief for amici curiae Sierra Club. Were on the brief for amici curiae State of New York. That the Executive Order is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. I. Background A PLA is a multi employer. It typically requires that all contractors and subcontractors who will work on a project subscribe to the agreement. The implementation of a PLA on a project underwritten by the Government almost always is accomplished by making agreement to the PLA a bid specifi cation. The Executive Order provides that the Government will neither require nor prohibit the use of a PLA on any federal or federally funded construction project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/003424p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1464.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Modrejewski told Holmes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5007.html">AIR LAND FORWARDERS, INC. V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 98-5007)<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Stanley I. With him on the brief were <u>David M. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p> The appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310725.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants herein proceeded to trial and were found guilty. I. This trial clearly demonstrates the inherent danger in a multi defendant conspiracy prosecution that individuals who are not actually members of the group will be swept into the conspiratorial net. Because the government is permitted broad prosecutorial discretion to prove the conspiracy. The likelihood exists that those who associate with conspirators will be found guilty of a crime that they have not intended to commit. This danger is compounded when the grand jury indicts on one theory of the illegal conduct. We have seen such conspiracy prosecutions before. The district court was persuaded to permit the government to proceed upon the assumption that the controlling law of mail fraud would change prior to the end of trial. Was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We held that fundamental due process was denied the defendants and vacated their convictions. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 The defendants were alleged to have used the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme and artifice to defraud McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5089.html">GARGOYLES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/00-5081a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief were Dennis Gingold. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment delineating appellants' trust obligations to IIM trust benefi ciaries and injunctive relief to ensure that such trust obli gations are carried out. The district court concluded that the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties. Notwithstanding the fact that appel lants have taken significant steps towards the discharge of the federal government's fiduciary obligations. Appellants clearly have yet to fulfill their trust duties. The relief ordered was well within the district court's equitable powers. This is undeniable. Such duties are grounded in the very nature of the government Indian relationship. It is equally clear that the federal government has failed time and again to discharge its fiduciary duties. There is no dispute that appellants. Have failed to discharge fully their fiduciary obligations. The issue we confront is whether the district court properly delineated the contours of the obligations owed by the Interior Secretary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5081a.html">ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ET AL. V. GALE A. NORTON<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were </P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Holmes is postmaster at the United States Post Office in Poncha Springs. The CIG employees informed Holmes that CIG was receiving the per pound bulk postal rate at the post office in Howard. She also informed the postmaster in Howard that CIG was not entitled to this rate. <p> Almost two years later. Holmes was at the Howard post office to provide postmaster training. She asked the current postmaster whether CIG was receiving the per pound bulk rate. She learned that it was. The Office of the Inspector General and a postal systems coordinator (an auditor) that CIG was defrauding the Postal Service by providing false information in order to obtain a lower postal rate. Although it later became clear that the interviewees were already aware of the fraud. The relator is entitled to a portion of the proceeds recovered in the action or settlement. <u>Id.</u> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5076.html">AEROLINEAS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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//mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><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://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-10312.man.html">SANDERLIN V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA (3/8/2001, NO. 00-10312)<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed the case because it found that the Tribe was entitled to the sovereign immunity accorded Native American tribes. Additionally that the Tribe waived whatever immunity it may have had by accepting federal funds.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5039.html">INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1552.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Jay K. With him on the brief were R. The primary issue in this appeal is the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Department of Defense and the United States Department of the Air Force (collectively. The government urges that we lack jurisdiction over this constitutional issue because it is unripe for adjudication and for other reasons. Also at issue are the district court's holdings that Rothe's damages and equitable award of a contract claims are moot. This case was submitted for decision after oral argument on March 7. We hold that we do have jurisdiction to consider the facial constitutionality of the present reauthorization of section 1207 but that the record is inadequate to decide the issue because the district court declined to provide the necessary opportunity to expand the record despite explicit remand instructions. Have no option but. We further hold that Rothe's damages claim is not moot but its equitable award of a contract claim is moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-10312.man.html">SANDERLIN V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA (3/8/2001, NO. 00-10312)<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed the case because it found that the Tribe was entitled to the sovereign immunity accorded Native American tribes. Additionally that the Tribe waived whatever immunity it may have had by accepting federal funds.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1687p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pittsburgh (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/021665P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The federal highway statutes have required that ten percent of federal highway construction funds be paid to small businesses owned and controlled by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043670p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the companies were operating as agents of the United States Navy. The only proper defendant in the case was the United States. He sought and was granted leave to file an amended complaint naming the United States as a party. We conclude that this decision was in error. Will reverse. Dyn Marine is incorrectly identified in the complaint and caption of the case as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1234.html">COYLE'S V. CUOMO<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994621.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul Kinter was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment. It is this lesser amount that Kinter contends is appropriate to consider under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2)(A). Renders his sentence unconstitutional because it was based in part upon judge made findings pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. King was the techSection 8(a) of the Small Business Act. Kinter and Nicholas were to pay King his share from their amount. Washington Data had no previous experience in computer maintenance and would not have received the IRS's contract but for King's influence with the contracting officer. The court rejected Kinter's argument that it should have considered only the $340. It would have enhanced Kinter's offense level only 8 levels. The enhancement is prescribed by the table contained in U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1. That table provides an 8 level enhancement if the dollar amount is more than $200. A 14 level enhancement if the dollar amount is more than $5 million. The government contends that the proper measure for determining the enhancement in this case is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hafetz</SPAN> were on brief. Kornspan</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. They argue that there was a constructive amendment of the indictment. That there was insufficient evidence to convict them. That the jury instructions were defective. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0322p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 1 the complaint was filed under seal and served upon the United States. Relator's case subsequently was transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee. Claiming that he was entitled to a relator's share of the settlement proceeds. An order to this effect was entered on the same day. The other listed defendants in the original complaint were Forstmann Little & Co. (a privately owned compa ny that wholly owns CHS ). Which is one of several hospitals owned by CHS. CHS was approached by the government about possible upcoding at two different CHS hospitals. OIG HHS simultaneously worked with the Department of Justice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/05/94-2253.htm">94-2253 -- RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER V. LUJAN -- 05/08/1997<BR></A><BR> Was signed into law by President Ford on January 4. The Secretaries are required to transfer resources and control of those programs to the tribe. The Act was intended to assure maximum participation by tribes in the planning and administration of federal services. A predetermined fixed rate for computing indirect costs applicable to a grant may be negotiated annually in situations where the cost experience and other pertinent facts available are deemed sufficient to enable the contracting parties to reach an informed judgment (1) as to the probable level of indirect costs in the grantee department during the period to be covered by the negotiated rate. The Secretary adds all funds that will be received by a tribe in a given fiscal year. The numerator is the amount of indirect costs the tribe is expected to incur in a given fiscal year. The numerator is divided by the denominator. To produce the amount of indirect cost funding that will be provided to a tribe in a given fiscal year. Or which are not readily assignable to the contract objectives specifically benefited without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/94-2253.wpd.html">RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER V. LUJAN<BR></A><BR> Was signed into law by President Ford on January 4. The Secretaries are required to transfer resources and control of those programs to the tribe. The Act was intended to assure maximum participation by tribes in the planning and administration of federal services. A predetermined fixed rate for computing indirect costs applicable to a grant may be negotiated annually in situations where the cost experience and other pertinent facts available are deemed sufficient to enable the contracting parties to reach an informed judgment (1) as to the probable level of indirect costs in the grantee department during the period to be covered by the negotiated rate. The Secretary adds all funds that will be received by a tribe in a given fiscal year. The numerator is the amount of indirect costs the tribe is expected to incur in a given fiscal year. The numerator is divided by the denominator. To produce the amount of indirect cost funding that will be provided to a tribe in a given fiscal year. Or which are not readily assignable to the contract objectives specifically benefited without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0841p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual History Appellant Ronald Goepel is a civilian employee of the United States Department of the Navy. Have been enrolled in the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. The Mail Handlers Benefit Plan is one of the health insurance plans available to federal government employees and their families. These healthcare plans are established pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA). Which is included as an appendix to the contract between OPM and the Union. Recommended that she undergo a treatment in which high doses of chemotherapy are followed by a peripheral stem cell infusion (HDC/APCR).[fn1] On July 14. The parties have stipulated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/971412.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We have granted en banc review to resolve a conflict in our court's jurisprudence that has surfaced following the publication of United States v. We granted the government's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.2 We will now affirm the convictions entered against defendants Universal Rehabilitation Services (PA). Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Charles J. With her on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. This is a Winstar related case. The trial court granted ACC and TFC's motion for summary judgment holding that the government was liable for a breach of contract. The court further held that the United States was entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' restitution claims. The court then conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the preliminary award of $168.7 million should be reduced by any losses the government could demonstrate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1207.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Douglas C. With him on the brief were Peter D. As that boundary is understood in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. The other defendants are the Federal Housing Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1930p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and against Harry Grant and Sandalwood Corporation. The court ruled that Grant and Sandalwood were liable for violations of the Clean Air Act. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States based upon Grant's and Sandalwood's non compliance with an EPA compliance order for each day they were </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5028.html">JAMES T. ROBINSON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/03-3134a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2005\03 3134 Ponds12aa.odl.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Mark H. With him on the brief were Benjamin P. The first three counts of the complaint allege that Venezuela and the FIV are derivatively liable for CAVN's breaches of contract. The final count alleges that Venezuela and the FIV are directly liable for having caused CAVN to breach its con tracts with the plaintiffs. Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). That they are immune from suit upon the fourth count under the
	OPINION/ORDER I. This matter is before the court pursuant to remand from the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that materiality is not an element of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Which had held that materiality was an element of § 1014. The remaining issues presented by the defendants are (1) whether the defendants have been held to answer for a crime not charged in their indictments and (2) whether the district court's instructions had the effect of improperly directing a verdict against the defendants. Since the background in this case and the underlying facts have been fully explored in this court's prior decision and the Supreme Court decision. We will only set forth those facts necessary to resolve the issues which remain for consideration. 2 II. Those arguments could have been raised in the initial appeal to this Court. The defendants could only have raised those arguments. If they had anticipated the government's position that materiality is not an element of § 1014. We decline to find that the defendants have waived their right to a consideration of their claims simply because they did not anticipate the government's change of position and brief all ancillary issues resulting from that change of position.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Griffin argues primarily that its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the district court awarded damages in addition to those awarded by the jury and granted a declaratory judgment to WEGCO. I. WEGCO is a Maryland corporation that assists its clients in obtaining and executing government contracts. Griffin is a Georgia corporation that provides the federal government with commercial facilities management and mechanical maintenance services. Provide support services after the contracts were awarded.
	99-2291 -- ELEPHANT BUTTE IRRIGATION DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO V. U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR -- 10/25/2001 The two projects involved in this litigation are the El Paso and Elephant Butte Irrigation Districts. Both of which are part of the Rio Grande Valley irrigation project. That project was part of a national drive to irrigate arid western lands during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Much of the early irrigation work was originally undertaken by private entities. The reclamation fund was to be made up entirely of money received from the sale of public lands. After construction was complete. The water districts were to reimburse the fund for the construction loans over a period of ten years. The agricultural depression of the 1920s made Congress's original plan for the operation of the reclamation fund unworkable. Many of the water districts were unable to make payments to the fund on their construction loans because of the depression. The goal was to make both the water districts and the reclamation fund solvent. Based upon the recommendations contained in that report. No distribution to individual water users shall be made out of any such profits before all obligations to the Government shall have been fully paid. 43 U.S.C.
	00-1486 -- KING V. U.S. -- 09/05/2002 The complaint averred that the Government was negligent in that it knew. Or should have known. That the Pike National Forest in Colorado was in an unusually high condition of combustability and that a fire ban should have been ordered. Id. at 8. The central ruling to this appeal is the dismissal of the Government's cross claim against defendant Wayne Emmett McKillop (McKillop). The cross claim against McKillop alleges he is liable to the Government for damages suffered as a result of a Buffalo Creek fire in the Pike National Forest. The liability of McKillop is averred to arise pursuant to terms of a Term Special Use Permit (the permit) obtained by McKillop from the Forest Service. He is alleged to be liable for damages suffered as a result of the fire. Was as follows. The fire is alleged to have been started by several students of defendant McKillop who were on a field trip supervised by McKillop. The forest fire was started as a result of a camp fire built by the students on the camping trip. Id. at 108.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Mark H. With him on the brief were Benjamin P. The first three counts of the complaint allege that Venezuela and the FIV are derivatively liable for CAVN's breaches of contract. The final count alleges that Venezuela and the FIV are directly liable for having caused CAVN to breach its con tracts with the plaintiffs. Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). That they are immune from suit upon the fourth count under the
	OPINION/ORDER We express no view about whether the government should have moved for a downward departure under § 5K1.1. In light of the district judge's unequivocal statement that he would have denied such a motion even if the government had made it. Other court proceedings at which [Defendant's] presence is requested by the government or compelled by subpoena or court order. Or any other court proceeding which [Defendant] is requested or required to attend. (7) not participate in any criminal activity during the time period that [Defendant] is cooperating with the government. If Defendant provided information that was the but for cause of the apprehension of fugitive Pham. The government was obligated to move for a sentence of probation pursuant to either § 5K1.1 or Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Defendant was initially scheduled to be sentenced on January 26. The district court expressed its 1 Rule 35(b) provides in pertinent part: If the Government so moves within one year after the sentence is imposed.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Peter J. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Mitchell were on the brief for appellee Envirovac. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (
	03-8012 -- KENNARD V. COMSTOCK RESOURCES INC. -- 04/05/2004 The Indian leases are subject to regulation by the Secretary of the Interior who acts as a fiduciary for the Tribe. The MMS is responsible for (1) collecting royalties. Wright speculated that Comstock was underpaying him and others in the area. Relator Kennard researched and investigated public records and discovered that the Indian leases might have expired. They concluded that Comstock was underpaying royalties to the Tribe and also that Comstock knew that it was underpaying the Tribe. Relators sent the required
	JOHN DOE V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief were Jules Bernstein and Linda Lipsett. With him on the brief were Peter D.
	USA V. BOMBARDIER CORPORATION AND ENVIROVAC Vincent McKnight Jr. argued the cause for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER The government acted in bad faith in refusing to Although
	OPINION/ORDER Is hereby amended by adding new footnote 22 at the end of the first sentence. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR 8039 22 This holding applies only to the extent that the equitable intrafarm exemption was used to find that no abandonment or forfeiture had occurred as to the parcels at issue in the underlying transfer applications. Transfer applicant Rambling River is not affected by our remand order because its parcels were not covered by an intrafarm exemption. The district court affirmed the State Engineer's Ruling No. 4591 to the extent that it stated that there was no clear and convincing evidence of nonuse on any specific portion of Rambling River's parcels. Rambling River's parcels were not part of the district court's remand order and the State Engineer did not address Rambling River in his Supplemental Ruling on Remand No. 4750. In which the intrafarm exemption was applied to the other parcels in question. Which have not been challenged. Rambling River's transfer applications are not subject to further proceedings on remand.
	CIRCA LTD. V. CITY OF MIAMI This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Circa Ltd. v. It argues that Circa does not have a viable claim under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE08057BF6F39DF3882571E0004AA906/$file/0416247.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Relators have raised allegations that the University of Phoenix knowingly made false statements. One of these requirements is a ban on incentive compensation: a ban on the institution's paying recruiters on a per student basis. This requirement is meant to curb the risk that recruiters will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9985054379a9c5d188256bce00827df3/$FILE/0015688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended by adding new footnote 22 at the end of the first sentence. ALPINE LAND & RESERVOIR 8039 22 This holding applies only to the extent that the equitable intrafarm exemption was used to find that no abandonment or forfeiture had occurred as to the parcels at issue in the underlying transfer applications. Transfer applicant Rambling River is not affected by our remand order because its parcels were not covered by an intrafarm exemption. The district court affirmed the State Engineer's Ruling No. 4591 to the extent that it stated that there was no clear and convincing evidence of nonuse on any specific portion of Rambling River's parcels. Rambling River's parcels were not part of the district court's remand order and the State Engineer did not address Rambling River in his Supplemental Ruling on Remand No. 4750. In which the intrafarm exemption was applied to the other parcels in question. Which have not been challenged. Rambling River's transfer applications are not subject to further proceedings on remand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/991931.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant tobacco companies have targeted the marketing of mentholated tobacco products at African Americans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/93-5360.opa.html">CIRCA LTD. V. CITY OF MIAMI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Circa Ltd. v. It argues that Circa does not have a viable claim under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/044083P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wintermute and Sinclair were paid salaries by both SFG and SMS. The closing memorandum stated SMS was not being sold along with SFG and amounts owed to SFG by SMS were not affected by the sale. Which in turn was loaned to Sinclair. SFG and StFG were used interchangeably in the business. Was told to omit reference to SMS because it was being shut down. NNB had significant problems and was operating under a memorandum of understanding at the time. Pope again was directed to omit reference to SMS and the $5 million personal note from Stevens to Sinclair and Wintermute. With the explanation there was no decision of how to dispose of the debt from SMS to SFG. Certifying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2287-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge) that would have compelled the former chief legal counsel in the Office of the Governor of Connecticut to reveal to a federal grand jury the contents of private conversations she had with the Governor and various members of his staff for the purpose of providing legal advice. order. Whether Governor Rowland1 and The identity of former Governor Rowland was initially protected by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU2NzctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5677-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Pagan & Pagan was on brief. Plaintiffs are fifty one LYNCH. A jury found against their claims that the incoming New Progressive Party (NPP) administration failed to renew their contracts of employment in various municipal jobs because they were supporters of the prior Popular Democratic Party (PDP) administration and so violated their rights under the First Amendment.1 The important question raised by this case is whether the district court committed error in admitting the testimony of an expert witness. Defendants did not testify this was their reason at the time of their decision not to renew plaintiffs' contracts. Although such expert testimony should not have been permitted. The governor's office was held by a member of the NPP. That history is recited in Agosto de Feliciano v. This court is faced with another wave of litigation (we hesitate to count which wave this is). Transitory employees generally do not have a property interest in continued employment beyond their yearly terms of appointment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5105.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35CFA55410AC01FD88256E5A00707C1E/$file/9955599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Private individuals may bring qui tam civil actions against entities that have defrauded the government. If an FCA suit is brought by a private individual ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0750p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which the Salvation Army was holding. Were part of the estate in bankruptcy. We will reverse the order directing turnover to the Bank. We will therefore remand this issue to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in this regard. Which was incorporated by reference into the bonds.[fn1] In March 1989. Modular also executed a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement which was filed on April 20. Modular commenced work on the Salvation Army project but was unable to complete all of its obligations under the contract. A Trustee was appointed. First Indemnity contends that the unpaid contract proceeds and retainage held by the Salvation Army were not properly characterized as accounts receivable owing to Modular so that the Bank's superpriority lien would apply to them. The Salvation Army was not obligated to make final payment to Modular until: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3123.html">JEFFREY J. TIBURZI V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034427.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that such relief was unavailable as Wood did not satisfy all of the statutory requirements. The plea agreement contained a provision limiting Wood's ability to contest the drug weight attributed to him: I agree that the total drug weight for which I should be held accountable as reasonably foreseeable conduct relevant to my own actions is at least 500 grams. I understand that my attorney will argue that I should [b]e held accountable for less than 1.5 kilograms but that the United States intends to argue that I should be held accountable for more than 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base. The district court repeatedly assured Wood that he would have the opportunity at sentencing to contest the drug weight attributable to him. Explained to the district court that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-1034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 $139. We will refer to appellant as PNC even when speaking of the Riggs I through V period. 4 First. PNC's loans to the Central Bank were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCB1FCFE4F33248A88256A9C00816665/$file/9955599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Private individuals may bring qui tam civil actions against entities that have defrauded the government. If an FCA suit is brought by a private individual ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/943714P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will support the use of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5183.html">FIRST COMMERCE CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Trial Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>John N. The court's analysis was incomplete because it did not consider the possibility that the government made a counteroffer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We conclude that the government made a counteroffer to First </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died before it was released. 2 1 Attorney for Appellant Evan C. The ministerial exception was created to protect church autonomy and avoid entangling government in religious affairs. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief. Or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance. Demoted her because she is a woman and because 5 she opposed sexual harassment by Gannon officials. A motion such as Gannon's is more properly dealt with under Rule 12(b)(6). We will therefore reverse the dismissal of her Title VII claims. What we deal with here is functionally a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 6 2 religion clauses removed jurisdiction. We cannot conclude at this stage of litigation that these claims will require an examination of matters of faith. They are not barred by the religion clauses.3 I. The facts set forth below are drawn from Petruska's First Amended Complaint. Gannon University is a Catholic diocesan college located in Erie. Petruska was appointed permanent chaplain on July 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1601.html">LES BROWNLEE, V. DYNCORP<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Craig S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard O. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'>This case presents two significant issues.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The first is whether the appeal by Les Brownlee. Entitlement decision is timely.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that it is.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The mere fact that the government could have appealed the Board s <st1:date Year= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5092.html">FORD MOTOR CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Charles J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Timothy P. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></sup></span><![endif]></span></span></sup></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We conclude that Ford is entitled to recover the costs of the environmental cleanup that was required by Federal a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004094.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. That certain evidence was improperly admitted against them. They each were charged with three counts of mail fraud. Curry Robinson was charged with six counts of money laundering. The defendants stated in letters to investors that Case Oil was an international business that had liquid assets of more than $40 million and contracts in excess of $250 million.2 They also claimed that Case Oil had contracts with several countries to construct chemical plants. The facts are presented in the light most favorable to the Government. 2 The letters written to prospective investors were signed on different occasions in each defendant's name. Included various representations such as the following: Case Oil Corporation is a Corporation in good standing with the State of Virginia and is licensed to do business both. Case is currently under contract by several countries to construct Urea and petro chemical plants. We are also suppliers of jet fuel oil to several major air lines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1837p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Act makes it a federal crime to defraud the United States in connection with a government contract that is valued in excess of $1 million. Each of which have a value of less than $1 million. Are within the purview of the Act when the underlying government contract has a value in excess of $1 million. AEC is an environmental consulting company headquartered in Pittsburgh and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Is a licensed professional engineer. Is the sole shareholder and president of AEC.2 It is well established that. Following is a statement of facts which the jury could have found based on the trial evidence. The Army entered into a consent decree with the State of Utah requiring the Army to treat the waste water it was generating at the depot and releasing into the ground water. The Army proposed to have a contractor build. AEC was selected. Once the price is established by the parties. The term of the contract was for one year followed by four one year options. Each of the tanks was designed to hold approximately 5. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50ED5D88FD07F49C8825707A007D8401/$file/0310548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions in all respects and remand on sentencing pursuant to United States v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The government brought Smith and Bates1 to trial for Smith and Bates were tried as co defendants with another alleged participant in the conspiracy. Wadsworth was acquitted by the jury. 1 13076 UNITED STATES v. Probably certain personal items were not exempt. Numerous clients testified at trial how defendants (usually Smith2) advised them that they did not have to pay taxes once they paid the defendants to establish a UBO. Bates told Denby and her husband that no taxes need be paid on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/912a11e7427e87b188256b60006e9f02/$FILE/0015688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is situated on the Tribe's aboriginal homeland. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Pyramid Lake's sole source of water is the Truckee River. The Project 2631 was designed to use the waters from both the Truckee and Carson Rivers to irrigate a substantial area in the vicinity of Fallon. Which by that time was under the management of the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID).1 The status of Truckee River water rights ostensibly determined under the Orr Ditch Decree was not resolved. The Supreme Court held that the United States and the Tribe were precluded on res judicata grounds from relitigating the water rights determination embodied in the Orr Ditch Decree. The Project was operated by the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID) under a delegation of authority from the United States. 2632 addition. Holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></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-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5109.html">HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS GALAXY 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-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/994334P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Special Agent Douglas Moore was the only identified individual defendant. I. Ordnance is a manufacturer and distributor of explosive devices. The first is by export to foreign countries or foreign companies. The second is pursuant to Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. He had told ATF agents on several occasions that his business was over regulated and that ATF should not have jurisdiction over its activities. ATF does not have authority. To regulate sales to foreign governments when they are made under contracts with the United States military. It called them </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/912A11E7427E87B188256B60006E9F02/$file/0015688.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is situated on the Tribe's aboriginal homeland. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Pyramid Lake's sole source of water is the Truckee River. The Project 2631 was designed to use the waters from both the Truckee and Carson Rivers to irrigate a substantial area in the vicinity of Fallon. Which by that time was under the management of the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID).1 The status of Truckee River water rights ostensibly determined under the Orr Ditch Decree was not resolved. The Supreme Court held that the United States and the Tribe were precluded on res judicata grounds from relitigating the water rights determination embodied in the Orr Ditch Decree. The Project was operated by the Truckee Carson Irrigation District (TCID) under a delegation of authority from the United States. 2632 addition. Holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0694p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will therefore affirm in part and reverse in part. We will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. It is important to emphasize at the outset that. Because we are reviewing the partial grant of a motion for summary judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/943714P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had the authority to prohibit acts which were not themselves fraudulent under the common law or § 10(b) of the Exchange Act. I. Factual and Procedural Background O'Hagan was a senior partner in the 275 lawyer Dorsey & Whitney law firm in Minneapolis. Dorsey & Whitney was local counsel representing Grand Metropolitan PLC (Grand Met). O'Hagan later was charged in a 57 count indictment for mail fraud. He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. We now address the parties' arguments that were not resolved in our prior opinion and which were reserved to us in the Supreme Court's opinion. In relevant part: Any person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter . . . or any rule or regulation thereunder the violation of which is made unlawful. . . shall upon conviction be fined not more than $100. Are two sturdy safeguards Congress has provided regarding scienter. We think it is clear that the Supreme Court was simply explaining that the statute provides that a negligent or reckless violation of the securities law cannot result in criminal liability. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5039.html">WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Bernard Nash</u>. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Specifically </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5052.html">MONARCH ASSURANCE P.L.C. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963657.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm on all other issues. 1 Background Plaintiffs in this case are insurance companies subject to the Florida statutes. The Florida legislature passed several statutes. 4 The first of these statutes was 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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-6344.htm">97-6344 -- DUPLAN V. HARPER -- 08/11/1999<BR></A><BR> Was a governmental employee and (2) the court was without power to impose a trust for the benefit of the Duplans' child. Arguing that the damages awarded by the district court were insufficient. She learned that she was pregnant. Duplan wished to be tested to determine whether she was immune to CMV. Agreed to abort the pregnancy if she was not immune rather than take the risk of having a child with CMV induced birth defects. <p> On July 22. Harper was an employee of Med National. Duplan by phone and told her that the results of the CMV test were positive. Duplan was uncertain whether a positive result meant that she was immune to CMV or that she was infected. Duplan was immune to CMV. Who was born with CMV induced birth defects including hearing loss. Zachary will require custodial care throughout his life and will need significant medical care and rehabilitative special education to function independently in any meaningful way. <p> On January 10. Were negligent in their medical treatment of Mrs. Harper) were acting within the scope of their employment and removed the case to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3476_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One for breach of contract and one for violating the Illinois (continued...) 2 No. 05 3476 mined that Caremark was not an ERISA fiduciary and therefore granted Caremark's motion to dismiss. One of the benefits provided is prescription drug coverage which entitles the union members to obtain brand name or generic prescription drugs for a small copayment. One of the nation's largest Pharmaceutical Benefit Management ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-5066.htm">97-5066 -- U.S. V. BUNNER -- 01/20/1998<BR></A><BR> We will not construe the language so literally that the purpose of the plea agreement is frustrated. <u>Id</u>. Several district court decisions<a href= </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2877_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both airplanes were receiving air traffic services from Meigs Field Air Traffic Control Tower. Renee Toone was staffing the air traffic control tower at Meigs Field. The parties assume that Toone's failure to inform the pilots of the two planes that they were on a collision course was the cause of the fatal crash. Most of the state court cases were settled. One was tried. Who at the time of the 1 They were Paul Alinsky. Et al. 3 collision was communicating with Toone about a landing gear problem. Arguing the United States had a non delegable duty to provide air traffic control services and was thus responsible for Toone's negligence. The plaintiffs also alleged the United States was liable for its own negligence by allowing an allegedly untrained and unqualified controller to staff Meigs tower. The plaintiffs alleged that the United States was liable because it negligently delayed approving additional staffing at Meigs. The plaintiffs' cases were consolidated. Each of which was docketed two days later. As the final judgment form was inadvertently attached to the last page of the corresponding Memorandum Opinion and Order. </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5088.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Steven S. With him on the brief were Joshua P. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Doumani and Thrall were not parties to a contract with the Government. 553 was a cost of substituting tangible capital for the capital lost as a result of the breach of the Government's contract with BoA's predecessor in interest Honolulu Federal Savings and Loan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963657.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm on all other issues.1 Background Plaintiffs in this case are insurance companies subject to the Florida statutes. The first of these statutes was 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-3657.man.html">VESTA FIRE INS. CORP. V. FLORIDA (5/22/1998, NO. 96-3657)<BR></A><BR> The Florida legislature passed several statutes.</P> <P> The first of these statutes was 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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyOTFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1291_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Judge) as sentenced John Canova to a one year term of probation after a jury trial at which defendant was found guilty of various substantive and conspiratorial crimes relating to his involvement in a multi million dollar Medicare fraud. Its request for de novo review of the district court's departure decision pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) is now foreclosed by United States v. We conclude that there was such an error in the district court's calculation of the loss amount relevant to the fraud guideline. Was charged in a six count indictment with (1) conspiring to defraud the United States from October 1999 through October 2001 by making false statements to Medicare agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 1999 letter to Medicare that Raytel was in compliance with Medicare specifications for testing pacemakers when he knew that it was not. By directing Raytel's Connecticut employees falsely to represent that Raytel was in full compliance with government testing specifications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5054.html">H.B.MAC, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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=05-8087.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Would have required the BLM to dismiss sixteen pending administrative actions against Robbins. The BLM responds that Robbins' claim is barred by sovereign immunity based on the relationship between the Administrative Procedure Act. We reject the BLM's sovereign immunity argument but affirm the district court's denial of Robbins' due process claim. (1) Judge Hartz joins in the result and concurs in the opinion except for Part II. <hr> BACKGROUND Robbins is the owner of three ranch properties located in Hot Springs County. Or BLM decision where <hr> range or resource degradation is at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/987324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dorothy 2 Boyanowski claimed to have been the victim of a civil conspiracy by two local officials that prevented her from receiving contracts to work as a bus driver. Was entered on his claim that the CAIU's conduct violated his substantive due process rights. Boyanowski's claims are essentially state tort defamation claims that do not implicate a federal constitutional interest. Constitutional claims of this sort have been implicitly rejected by the Supreme Court. We will therefore set aside the jury verdict in Mr. There is no need to consider his cross appeal of the District Court's decision to grant Nagle qualified immunity. Is for civil conspiracy. We will therefore set aside the verdict on civil conspiracy as well. The CAIU is a governmental entity operating under Pennsylvania's public school laws. Intermediate units ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-3657.man.html">VESTA FIRE INS. CORP. V. FLORIDA (5/22/1998, NO. 96-3657)<BR></A><BR> The Florida legislature passed several statutes.</P> <P> The first of these statutes was 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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-6344a.htm">97-6344A -- DUPLAN V. HARPER -- 08/11/1999<BR></A><BR> Was a governmental employee and (2) the court was without power to impose a trust for the benefit of the Duplans' child. Arguing that the damages awarded by the district court were insufficient. She learned that she was pregnant. Duplan wished to be tested to determine whether she was immune to CMV. Agreed to abort the pregnancy if she was not immune rather than take the risk of having a child with CMV induced birth defects. <p> On July 22. Harper was an employee of Med National. Duplan by phone and told her that the results of the CMV test were positive. Duplan was uncertain whether a positive result meant that she was immune to CMV or that she was infected. Duplan was immune to CMV. Who was born with CMV induced birth defects including hearing loss. Zachary will require custodial care throughout his life and will need significant medical care and rehabilitative special education to function independently in any meaningful way. <p> On January 10. Were negligent in their medical treatment of Mrs. Harper) were acting within the scope of their employment and removed the case to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212357.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Francis Crawford and Joe Hudgens were piloting a United States Army helicopte r on a M edivac m ission on May 1 . A c ompo nent of th e structur al assemb ly by wh ich the he licopter's tail rotor blade is attached to the pilot's carriage.1 An external skin covers the structural frame of which the fin spar is part. The investigating authorities concluded that the rupture was caused by a crack that originated at a rivet hole near the base of the fin spar. D yncorp was to maintain Army aircraft loc ated at the b ase. The publications contemplated by the contract have been en tered in th e record in the for m of ins pection c hecklists a nd man uals providing instructions for the maintenance and repair of UH 1 aircraft. Exhibits 1 3.2 One checklist identifies a series of inspections to be completed every day a helicopter is flown. All citations to the record will. The Court has satisfied itself that the evidentiary materials discussed in the text of this opinion were in all instances filed. Operators were to inspect the modified fin spar for cracks at least once during each subsequent eight hours of flight time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/96a1489p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Independent sued the City and Authority in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania after the City declared that Independent was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIxMjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2126-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal presents a novel issue arising in the context of interpreting a court approved stipulation of settlement between private and governmental parties that is equivalent to a consent decree: do terms of the stipulation that recite provisions of state statutes in force at the time of the stipulation bind the governmental defendants to continue those provisions into the future notwithstanding later changes by a state legislature? The Plaintiffs are a group of convicted sex offenders required to register pursuant to the SORA. Have the effect of preventing the State from applying to the Plaintiffs recent statutory changes that (a) extended the time that many of the Plaintiffs are subject to the Act's registration requirements. We conclude that the stipulation was negotiated to avoid litigation over the procedures by which the Plaintiffs' risk levels would be redetermined. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to the 2 benefit of those bargained for procedures. That the Plaintiffs did not bargain to have the stipulation assure them the continued scope of state statutes existing at the time of the stipulation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1186.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are former teachers of the Academy. Background The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy <hr> when Plaintiffs were employed there as teachers. Plaintiffs were employed as teachers pursuant to written contracts with the Academy. The Plaintiffs allege that they were told the Academy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1992p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted of various crimes arising out of their involvement with the National Maritime Union ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5146.html">MARATHON OIL COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <u>E. With him on the brief were. Payments.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/99-3149a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Wilma A. Pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. s 201(c)(1)(B) by receiving illegal gratuities from massage parlors that were flagrantly violating local law. That it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E063293B15D827F882573370056C89D/$file/0535648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hanford Reservation was a plutonium production facility that helped make the atomic bomb that dropped on Nagasaki. A regrettable Hanford byproduct was the radioiodine emitted into the surrounding area. The plaintiffs in this litigation are over two thousand residents who now claim that these emissions. Claiming they were entitled to damages for injuries arising from a nuclear IN RE: HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION LITIGATION 9797 incident pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2210. The history is discussed in our earlier opinions in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. The trial was designed to produce a verdict that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective cases and thus focused on six plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5131.html">DOTY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1805p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate on TRA's breach of contract claim. Because we agree with the district court that the agreement is unambiguous and that the Government did not breach the agreement by applying the CZMA to TRA. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. We find that the district court erred in treating those claims as a writ of review and therefore will remand for the district court to consider TRA's constitutional claims under its original. I. Great Hans Lollik Island is a 500 acre uninhabited island located approximately two miles off the coast of St. When the Island was owned by Hans Lollik Corporation. The Corporation and the Government of the Virgin Islands entered into an agreement which was enacted into law as Act No. 1145. The parties have not disputed this ruling on appeal. We also will interpret the agreement under basic contract principles. 3 Under the agreement. The agreement states that the initial development objective is to construct a hotel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1766.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. and Julianne Cloutier were on brief for appellee Amy Bierbaum. Cabell and Hale and Dorr were on brief for appellees Verrill & Dana. McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellee RECOLL Management Corporation. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee Fleet Bank of Maine. The issue is one of first impression. We have attached them in an appendix to our opinion. 2. As will be discussed infra. We believe the court erred in determining that this action was jurisdictionally barred. Section 3730(e)(3) states: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bockius LLP</U> were on the brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on the brief. Inc.</U> were on the brief.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0120p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) denying Winters's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the complaint on the grounds that the deferred compensation accrual on the final cost report was immaterial. (4) denying Winters's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (a) the jury verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. (b) there was no evidence the Government sustained any harm. (c) the jury was confused in calculating damages. The jury verdict and remitted award of damages is AFFIRMED. All of which were managed through Medshares Management Group. Which was in place at all of the other home health agencies owned by Winters and managed by MMGI. The Plan was a deferred profit sharing and stock bonus plan. It was Winters's policy that after buying a home health agency. I at 132) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1039.html">KEARFOTT GUIDANCE & NAVIGATION CORPORATION V. DONALD RUMSFELD<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Samuel Paige</u>. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </spa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB314B86CCA3F50588256BAE00579F18/$file/0016874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether the government is an intended beneficiary. Parties to surety contracts are free. We interpret the language of the contract in this case to have done so. Therefore hold that both the state and federal governments are intended beneficiaries of the surety contract to the extent of the subcontractor's past due tax obligations. 6554 ISLAND INSURANCE CO. v. Hawaiian was required by its contract with Oahu ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948485.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2 were convicted pursuant to a 133 count indictment charging them with various offenses arising out of the operation of the concessions at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Ira Jackson was the first black person elected to the Atlanta City Council and served from 1970 to 1990. Will be referred to herein as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/036739.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is undisputed that the petitioner's lawyer erroneously informed him that the guilty plea was conditional and that the petitioner would not have pleaded guilty absent this representation. Also did not state that White's guilty plea was conditional. WHITE 3 have made it conditional. White asserted that his guilty plea was not voluntary and knowing because. He believed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5022.html">BRANCH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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/1999/04/97-8087.htm">97-8087 -- MONCRIEF V. WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CO. -- 04/20/1999<BR></A><BR> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5117.html">WALLACE FORMAN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Whether or not this hiring was at the direction of the FBI.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We therefore hold that the Court of Federal Claims improperly granted t </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-3003a.html">USA V. WHITE ROHAN C.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981037.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That WSRC falsely certified that there was no conflict of interest with the subcontractor. Or because the allegedly false statements were not made in connection with a </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052492p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 15 42 years' imprisonment. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed an 11 count Information against McKeever arising out of his possession and delivery of heroin. (16).1 He was charged with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Were made concurrent with one of the six drug delivery counts. They did not have any effect on the actual length of his sentence. The drug delivery counts were made consecutive with each other. The details of the sentencing scheme as set forth in the plea agreement are as follows: Count I (dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities): 1 5 years concurrent with Count V. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the amended act was to be applied prospectively only. Collaterally challenged his sentence under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5044.html">AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </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/F5D4A36D89EC28B288256E5A00707ADC/$file/0050071.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: Appellant Robert Silver ( </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/CE259E802480AF6A88256A26005CEC17/$file/0050071.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: Appellant Robert Silver ( </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1147.html">T.BROWN CONST. V. PENA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3238.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Also pending is the government's (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which motion was denied by the district court on September 7. Is a direct appeal from the June 2005 judgment and raises Young's substantive claims in a timely fashion. Young claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal based upon (1) the government's alleged breach of the plea agreement at sentencing. The filing was untimely and the government breached the plea agreement. The district court correctly noted in this April holding that Young's waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence did not preclude Young's argument that his prior counsel was ineffective. Because there was little information on whether Young's lawyer specifically disregarded Young's instructions to appeal and on whether defects in the 2004 sentencing proceeding occurred. Which action was followed by Young's timely appeal. Young is no longer bound by the contract. 17 Am. We have not yet determined in this circuit whether a party has the right to pursue an alleged breach of a plea contract in the face of a wavier of appeal. </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2570-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization. </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.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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5129.html">TRAUMA SERVICE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003615P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The relevant facts are largely undisputed. The parties agree that superintendents are not among those officials designated to authorize contracts requiring Section 81 approval. As the Agreements were not authorized by a duly empowered individual. The Agreements were void ab initio. Given its conclusion that the Agreements were properly authorized. Also argue that the Agreements are not subject to its requirements. Was filed under the unamended statute. 3 II. The Court held </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1656.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harrow</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Which entitles litigants who prevail against the government to attorney's fees unless the position of the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-5006a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Melissa E. Stahl was on the brief for amicus curiae Burlington Resources. Glaze were on the brief for amici curiae in support of appellees. Which is largely absent from conventional natural gas. Mainline natural gas pipelines will not accept gas with a carbon dioxide component of more than two to three percent of volume. They must use the mainline and meet its more stringent carbon dioxide standard. 3 The federal government is a large landowner in the San Juan Basin and. The relationship between the government and those who extract gas from the government's land is regulated pursuant to an elaborate array of statutes and rules. The Secretary of the Interior is directed by statute to establish a comprehensive inspection. A factor in calculating these </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1319A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant John Doe (a pseudonym for reasons that will become apparent) was convicted on November 4. He was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment. Doe was indicted again on June 14. For another drug offense and a plea agreement was executed in that second case on August 15. Alleging that the government was required to seek a reduced sentence because he had provided useful information to the government. A hearing was held. Doe said in response that his cooperation was not too late the government simply failed to follow up his information until any actions it could have brought based on his evidence were time barred. Which was denied in the first case on November 14. It is Doe's appeal from this denial which is now before us. It is clear that Doe did not colorably allege an unconstitutional bias on the part of the government. Show that the government's refusal to file a substantial assistance motion </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1420.html">FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY V. GORDON ENGLAND<BR></A><BR> For appellee.<span style= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5014.html">MYERS INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES, INC., 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-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-3100a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. He otherwise appears to have stayed out of the broader conspiracy. Luther was convicted of conspiracy and receipt of stolen property. I. This is the fifth appeal stemming from a series of convictions in a conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of Education (DOE). Worked as a telecommunications specialist at DOE and was responsible for installation and maintenance of telephone services throughout the Department. She was authorized to place orders under service contracts DOE had with two companies. Many of these goods were initially delivered to Elizabeth's home in Mechanicsville. Appellant Luther Mellen also known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5092.html">OSHKOSH TRUCK CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1726.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taranto</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Its accouterments are not the most clearly delineated. Bear witness to that point.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F523700CC7CC9AFD88256C7E0014F265/$file/0050422.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that the government violated the plea agreement and that he is entitled to specific performance of that agreement. Port of Entry for a van that Franco Lopez knew was to contain marijuana. Franco Lopez was arrested in September 1999 for trafficking in narcotics across the United States Mexico border. Three sections of that plea agreement are at issue in this appeal. They are: (1) a promise to recommend a sentence below the mandatory minimum under the U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71A061C7705237C3882571FC004939A4/$file/0436066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Was on the brief. Appellants are residents who presently live in this housing property. We affirm the district court's denial of appellants' motion to intervene in the quiet title lawsuit because their interests are sufficiently protected by their APA lawsuit. Kimberly merely held that certain defenses were not available to the government in a quiet title action brought by Section 515 borrowers to enforce their contractual right to prepay their loans. Ours is an APA case brought by residents challenging the agency's noncompliance with the Emergency Low Income Housing Protection Act. Kimberly did not hold that ELIHPA was invalid or that the Department of Agriculture was free to violate it. I. Background The facts are not disputed. Section 515 of the National Housing Act of 1949 was enacted by Congress to encourage private investment in housing for elderly and low income individuals in rural areas. Which was later subsumed into RHS. UNITED STATES the housing owners agreed to rent to qualified low income tenants at affordable rates for as long as the loans were outstanding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F3D0EAED61F52D5882571B10081495F/$file/0435210.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs' homes were built with wood foundations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The MHHO Program was designed to These facts. Are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint. Which is presumed true for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding. The families were required to contribute land. Each family was required to make monthly payments in an amount calibrated to their income. The homebuyers were made responsible for maintenance of the house. When the program was formalized in the Indian Housing Act of 1988. The Blackfeet Housing Authority was charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTEwODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-1080-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered into a Credit Default Swap </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2612.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PSC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-3274.htm">99-3274 -- U.S. V. MCCLATCHEY -- 06/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court concluded there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find McClatchey had a specific intent to violate the Act. That the district court improperly instructed the jury it could convict McClatchey if remuneration was paid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-M806.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. All proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims have been stayed pending our consideration of the petition. Scholl alleges that the denial of his reappointment as a bankruptcy judge by the United States Court of Section 1651(a) provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75C640A55315A44E88256F850079CCD4/$file/0217048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died when her Ford Expedition patrol vehicle rolled over while she was driving on a dirt road within the Navajo Nation. The road is a reservation road. There is no federal or state right of way. The road is not located on non Indian fee land. The cause of the rollover accident is disputed. Ford asserts that Todecheene was not wearing a seatbelt. Counter that the Ford Expedition was defective and the seatbelt was not working properly. Was defective and unreasonably dangerous in design or manufacture. Financed the purchase of the Expedition Because our resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction question is outcome determinative. The district court also held that Ford was not required to exhaust tribal court remedies before challenging the tribal court's jurisdiction in federal court. Because jurisdiction was plainly lacking and exhaustion would serve only to delay the proceedings. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Whether a tribal court properly exercised its jurisdiction is The Appellants did not argue this theory of subject matter jurisdiction in their Opening Briefs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052361p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Was appointed poet laureate of New Jersey in July 2002. There is hereby established the New Jersey William Carlos Williams Citation of Merit to be presented to a distinguished poet from New Jersey who shall be considered the poet laureate of the State of New Jersey for a period of two years. Shall biennially appoint and convene a panel of four persons who are either distinguished poets or persons who represent a range of stylistic approaches in the field of poetry. In part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0442p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was convicted of manufacturing and possessing with intent to manufacture in excess of one hundred marijuana plants. Page 2 BACKGROUND Defendant is a public health epidemiologist.1 He has worked on a myriad of public health projects with numerous entities. Defendant was charged with manufacturing and possessing with intent to manufacture in excess of one hundred marijuana plants. He was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR> Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0B18BFB1437346F8825707A004DE706/$file/0435105.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that relevant decisions regarding fire prevention were encompassed in the government's contracts with Fluor Daniel Hanford. The action is therefore barred by the independent contractor exception to the FTCA. We do not reach whether the suit is also barred by the discretionary function exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The wildfire was triggered by an automobile crash on Washington State Route 24 (SR 24). SR 24 is located on an easement over federal property granted by the United States 13002 AUTERY v. The ALE Reserve is an ecologically sensitive area with significant natural and cultural resources. The terms of the transfer are set forth in a June 20. Specific control of the ALE is important here because the fire started on the ALE or. Plaintiffs' primary FTCA claim is that the United States (either the DOE or the FWS) negligently maintained firebreaks near SR 24 along the ALE and such negligence caused fire to spread from SR 24 onto the ALE and ultimately to Plaintiffs' properties.1 The DOE had a large (over $2.8 billion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs appellants are four title insurance companies that do business in Michigan: First American Title Company (a subsidiary of First American Corporation). The defendants appellees are the Registers of Deeds of five counties in Michigan: Lapeer. First American contends that this no resale condition is an anticompetitive practice that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. We affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the Tuscola County Register because those practices are covered by state action immunity from antitrust liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A register of deeds ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTEwODAtY3Zfb3BuIHcgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/06-1080-cv_opn%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered into a Credit Default Swap </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5111.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR> Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1824.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The government will frequently promise to forego advocacy of an upward departure at a defendant's sentencing. Although the government's clumsily composed brief in the prior appeal was regrettable. Defendant appellant Thomas Frazier was indicted on two counts of distributing cocaine base. Attorney and Defendant agree that there is no basis for a departure from the sentencing range established by the United States Sentencing Guidelines [except that Defendant reserves the right to argue for a downward departure based upon his family circumstances].<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3083a.html">U.S. V. ROBERT HITT<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5162a.html">VULCAN ARBOR HILL V. REICH ROBERT<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951185P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. married since 1988. The O'Hagans have been The IRS appeals. Which is their principal place of residence. The O'Hagans have owned the homestead property at all times In during their marriage as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. 1988. O'Hagan has not been assessed any income tax liability and is not obligated to pay any part of her husband's taxes. Which sale was to occur on November Mrs. DISCUSSION The question before us is whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin the government from selling Mr. The primary purpose of the Act is to See The § facilitate the expeditious collection of taxes by the government. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer in which the collection or assessment of taxes would be enjoined because: (1) the government cannot prevail on the merits even if the facts and law are examined in the light most favorable to the government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3083a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. On the brief were Dan Marmalefsky and Eric M. The Grand Jury returned a sixteen count indictment for alleged fraudu lent misrepresentations made to the United States Depart ment of Commerce in connection with the sale by the McDon nell Douglas Corporation to the People's Republic of China of machinery that was subject to export controls. That the prosecu tion of Hitt was therefore barred by the five year statute of limitations. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bobo's motion to dismiss the indictment because the conduct alleged in the indictment was legally insufficient to support Dr. That the district court was biased against him and denied him a fair trial. That the district court's instruction on </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1409.html">DALTON V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT<BR></A><BR> </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=92-1491.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roy was on brief. Were on brief. It was only after the authorities started to uncover pervasive corruption in the Sarault administration that appellants began cooperating with the U.S. Mariano and Butterworth were charged and sentenced separately. Stated that he did not have discretion to depart. The waiver provisions are impuissant. That their sentences were </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/971902P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This Federal Torts Claims Act case based on negligent inspection of a grain warehouse is before us for the second time. We ruled that Appley Brothers' claim was based on the U.S.D.A.'s breach of a mandatory duty. Therefore jurisdiction of the suit was not barred by the discretionary function exception to the F.T.C.A. Again arguing that the suit was barred by the discretionary function exception. That the mandatory duty on which we based our ruling in Appley Brothers I was not applicable. The government argues the court erred in concluding that the discretionary function The appellees are farmers. We will refer to them collectively as Appley Brothers. 2 1 exception did not apply and in determining that U.S.D.A. owed Appley Brothers a duty of care based on 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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE1FD6FDAF8976288256ACD00750FAD/$file/0155770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a wholesale energy supplier is entitled to injunctive relief from orders issued by the Governor of California commandeering its contractual rights to deliver electricity to public utilities within the state. I A The electricity contracts at issue in this appeal are the products of the restructuring of the California electricity market. The CalPX was deemed a public utility under the Federal Power Act ( </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7017F5E691D20B3688256E5A00707A19/$file/0010167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7979639F87F0F5E4882569DF0063580A/$file/0010167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8298DE974677E21388256E5A00707CD8/$file/0155770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a wholesale energy supplier is entitled to injunctive relief from orders issued by the Governor of California commandeering its contractual rights to deliver electricity to public utilities within the state. I A The electricity contracts at issue in this appeal are the products of the restructuring of the California electricity market. The CalPX was deemed a public utility under the Federal Power Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/7017f5e691d20b3688256e5a00707a19/$FILE/0010167.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/7979639f87f0f5e4882569df0063580a/$FILE/0010167.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are motor carriers and their officers who were prosecuted for antitrust violations but were ultimately exonerated. Because their conduct was found to be covered by an 1164 antitrust immunity provision of the Shipping Act of 1984. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background and Prior Proceedings When American military personnel serving abroad are relocated to the United States. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-2031.htm">03-2031 -- U.S. V. GONZALEZ-GARCIA -- 01/07/2004<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of forty one months. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </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/10circuit/nov95/95-1005.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER<BR></A><BR> Cooper was originally charged with theft of government property valued at approximately $300. The parties were unable to reach a plea agreement on this charge which the court would accept. Because the government was apparently unable to prove the $300. The pertinent provisions of which read as follows: [T]he government will recommend that the defendant receive a sentence of probation. This recommendation is the only representation/inducement that the government has made to the defendant. . . . . Pertinent facts are set out below in order to provide a factual basis of the plea and to provide facts which the parties believe are relevant . . . for computing the appropriate guideline range. . . . Additional facts or factors not included herein which are relevant to the guideline computation . . . or to sentencing in general . . . . Nor is the court or probation precluded from the consideration of such facts. . . . The parties agree that the government's evidence would show that the date on which conduct relevant to the offense . . . began was February 1. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reiterating those claims and asserting that the district court should have admitted the deposition testimony of the president of the Iowa Lottery Authority (the Lottery). A TouchPlay machine is </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-11130.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 1461 W. 42ND ST., HIALEAH, FLORIDA (5/22/2001, NO. 99-11130)<BR></A><BR> This appeal deals with the considerations that ensue when real property that the government has seized in civil forfeiture proceedings is foreclosed by the property's mortgagee so that when it is time to return the property. We are presented here with the task of tailoring an appropriate remedy under such circumstances when due process was violated pursuant to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-11130.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 1461 W. 42ND ST., HIALEAH, FLORIDA (5/22/2001, NO. 99-11130)<BR></A><BR> This appeal deals with the considerations that ensue when real property that the government has seized in civil forfeiture proceedings is foreclosed by the property's mortgagee so that when it is time to return the property. We are presented here with the task of tailoring an appropriate remedy under such circumstances when due process was violated pursuant to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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.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="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413977.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Martinelli claims that the district court should have suppressed certain evidence. I. The basic facts developed at trial in this money laundering conspiracy case are these. Attempting to locate those who were interested in selling their business. A seller was required to sign a contract whereby it agreed to pay GBS a certain percentage of the total value of the business in exchange for the advertising. Except where it is necessary to differentiate between the various entities. 2 1 Donald Cox. There were no such customers. The people pictured in the representations were actually Martinelli and other GBS employees. Cox also described how GBS represented in its mailings to putative sellers that all of its buyers were prequalified to ensure they had the financial ability to purchase a business when. Such screening was discontinued soon after GBS was formed. All buyers and sellers 3 were manually logged in record books.2 The government also presented the testimony of over 100 witnesses at trial. Many of whom were businesspeople who signed contracts with GBS in hopes of selling their companies. </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/03-5147.html">MARATHON OIL COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Griffith L. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Carolyn D. The Oil Companies brought a new claim alleging that they were entitled to the interest under 28 U.S.C. §&n </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant We reverse and remand this case for Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </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.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-30023-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Proceedings Below This is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case is now before this court on the defendant We reverse and remand this case for Georgia Gulf's interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Georgia Gulf's motion to dismiss the complaint under FED. One of the primary products manufactured by Georgia Gulf at its chemical facility in Plaquemine is polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Which is a known carcinogen. The PVC is produced in eighteen reactors which must be routinely opened in order to conduct physical inspections. When the reactors are opened. Vinyl This is known as </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/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-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1223.html">ALTMAYER V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR> </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.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="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061273P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shan Wei Yu was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) and one count of conspiring to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). That the court should have held a competency hearing. That his sentence is unreasonable. Great Texas was in the business of supplying Chinese restaurants in several states with immigrant workers. The two men admitted that they were Mexican citizens who were in the country illegally and who had been working at a Chinese restaurant in Grand Forks. The apartment where they were staying. Agents served administrative subpoenas to telephone companies and learned that the 713 and 312 numbers were both assigned to Yu's home in McKinney. At one of these restaurants agents found another employee forwarded by Yu who was in the country illegally. The new numbers were also assigned to Yu. Also discovered were records from bank accounts owned jointly by Yu and his girlfriend. In addition there were copies of direct mailings sent to Chinese restaurant owners and of advertisements placed in the World Journal which listed the 713 area code phone number and Ms. </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.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-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942314.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was imposed under the incorrect version of the Sentencing Guidelines and is the subject of the government's cross appeal. Is vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing. Commerce in firearms is regulated intensely by the federal government. Bailey was not permitted to stock weapons for future sale to police departments. Although Bailey's firearms business was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002428.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the orders of the district court. Is the founder and majority shareholder of two small capitalization medical services businesses EquiMed. The average market price was computed by taking the average of the stock's closing prices for the five days immediately prior to the exchange request. The structure of the second note ( </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1020.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It did not have enough money to meet its next payroll and could only continue operating after receiving substantial assistance from the State of Colorado. Plaintiff Appellant Kenneth Kirkland was the assistant superintendent of auxiliary services overseeing the District's finance department during this time period. We conclude the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Kirkland was employed pursuant to a series of one year contracts. Is written </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7695963BA365CA9F88256E5A00707D19/$file/0035122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Burgesses forfeited the land sales contract and title was returned to the Ormes. The district court concluded that the forfeiture of a land sales contract was not a sale of property subject to the notice requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7425(b). That the federal tax lien was eliminated upon forfeiture of the land sales contract. The forfeiture of the land sales contract was a sale of property subject to the notice requirement and. Because no notice was given. The forfeiture was subject to the federal tax lien. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are not in dispute. 500 and monthly payments thereafter until the sale price was paid in full in April 1997. A quitclaim deed transferring the Burgesses' interest in the property back to the Ormes was held in escrow. The lien was in the amount of $5. The Ormes discovered that the federal tax lien representing the Burgesses' unpaid income tax liabilities was recorded against the property. Forfeiture of a land sales contract was not a </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. <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/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1535.html">TEXTRON V. WIDNALL<BR></A><BR> </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0185p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We do so in the interests of state and federal judicial comity and because the facts of the case at bar are amenable to a limited holding. 85 Ohio St. 3d at 274. The statistics and the rationale underlying both those MBE programs are the same. The constitutionality of the overall MBE scheme was before the state court. As it was before the district court. A federal court owes no duty to abstain in deference to a state court when a federal constitutional question is at issue. Even if the Ohio Supreme Court could have avoided the federal constitutional question in Ritchey by a decision on state law grounds. That Ritchey is not </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5173.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Charles J. Of counsel was Nicole Jo Moss. With him on the brief were Stuart E. This is a Winstar related case in which the Court of Federal Claims held that the government had breached an agreement with a savings and loan company that the latter could use a particular method of accounting in determining its capital for regulatory purposes. It contends that the breach of the agreement did not cause the injury for which the plaintiffs were awarded damages. The facts relating to the financial problems of the savings and loan industry in the early 1980s and the federal government's attempts to alleviate the situation are well known and need only to be briefly summarized here. At that time a large number of savings and loan companies (also known as thrifts) were in serious financial straits and facing insolvency. Which usually were incorporated in written agreements with them. The Supreme Court upheld this court's decision that the United States was liable for breach of contract to thrifts with which it had agreed to permit the use as regulatory capital 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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Alex D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Jane K. With him on the brief was Robert L. The Secretary [of Energy] is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high level radioactive waste. Will dispose of the high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subchapter. The government asserts that sixty six such claims have been filed. The United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action (A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary. Is commonly known as Yucca Mountain. Courts of appeals have asserted jurisdiction under section 119 over claims brought challenging DOE actions under the NWPA. The first of these cases was General Electric Uranium v. Although section 302(a)(3) fell within Title III of the Act and section 119 was in Title I and only conferred the courts of appeals with jurisdiction over agency actions </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/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1111.html">ADMIRALTY V. DALTON<BR></A><BR> </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/94opinions/94-1336a.html">BLOUNT WILLIAM B. V. SEC<BR></A><BR> </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/491E1B039D4A0B8088256AE8007FBF17/$file/0035122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Burgesses forfeited the land sales contract and title was returned to the Ormes. The district court concluded that the forfeiture of a land sales contract was not a sale of property subject to the notice requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7425(b). That the federal tax lien was eliminated upon forfeiture of the land sales contract. The forfeiture of the land sales contract was a sale of property subject to the notice requirement and. Because no notice was given. The forfeiture was subject to the federal tax lien. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are not in dispute. 500 and monthly payments thereafter until the sale price was paid in full in April 1997. A quitclaim deed transferring the Burgesses' interest in the property back to the Ormes was held in escrow. The lien was in the amount of $5. The Ormes discovered that the federal tax lien representing the Burgesses' unpaid income tax liabilities was recorded against the property. Forfeiture of a land sales contract was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023067p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schedule A also stated that the base Offense Level was 38. He was to receive an additional one level decrease if the Offense Level set by the district court was 16 or greater. The applicable guidelines total offense level is 35. </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1119.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel was Arlie O. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Major Anissa Parekh. The preconstruction conference was held on November 2. It became apparent that the government's plans were flawed and that construction could not begin until the government provided Singleton with new construction drawings. Singleton responded that it was not obligated to furnish proof of insurance until ten days after the government allowed work to begin. The audit focused on the amount that Singleton claimed it was owed for unabsorbed overhead. It did not make a determination as to whether Singleton was entitled to the overhead. Regarding the claim for overhead for the period during which performance of the contract was delayed. The Board found that Singleton was responsible for the delay. The Board ruled that the government's failure to provide new drawings was merely a concurrent cause of the delay and that Singleton therefore was not entitled to unabsorbed overhead under Nicon. Singleton essentially asks that we find that the government was solely responsible for the delay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0555E2F83B8D3CA88256C5B000261BB/$file/0056446.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court for the Southern District of California agreed with BSI that the property in question was not an asset of the judgment debtor FLATOW v. Was killed in an explosion when the bus in which she was traveling collided with a van loaded with explosives. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 statutory note.3 This provision is commonly referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></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-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-15411.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AM. STATES INS. CO. (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15411)<BR></A><BR> American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was James P. BACKGROUND De Archibold brought claims in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the United States is liable for amounts due to plaintiffs under Panamanian labor law as a consequence of plaintiff's employment with AAFES in Panama. As the underlying basis for those claims was the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal. Because De Archibold's claims were dependent on the Panama Canal Treaty. Because De Archibold also asserted that jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). 2007 1032 2 DISCUSSION Whether a district court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action is a question of law that we review de novo. We are presented with the question of whether the Agreement in Implementation is a contract falling within that De Archibold only appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under section 1346(a)(2) on the theory that the Agreement in Implementation is an express contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3084.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weidner was the president. Although the government's case was largely circumstantial. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the jury instructions were adequate. Weidner was the president. Wittig was an established Capital City Bank customer with substantial assets: a March 2001 financial statement on file with the bank reported a net worth of $33.921 million. He was the chairman of the board. Weidner that he was not capable of making this investment. Wittig of the Arizona project and asked if he was interested. Wittig responded that he thought that the investment was a great opportunity but had other projects that he wanted to pursue instead. Weidner did not have the $1.5 million he needed to make the investment. Adding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053019np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the order and remand the case for further proceedings. The magistrate judge reasoned that the funds authorized under the Agreed Amendment had been spent appropriately and were virtually depleted. The District Court agreed with the magistrate judge that the funds advanced under the Agreed Amendment had been spent appropriately and were virtually depleted. We have interlocutory jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Because we conclude that the 6 plain and unambiguous language of the Agreed Amendment is not susceptible to the meaning adopted by the District Court. We agree with the government that there was no waiver. We have stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-7225a.html">USA/DANIEL YESUDIAN V. HOWARD UNIV<BR></A><BR> The University said he was <p> terminated for insubordination. Yesudian claimed he was <p> discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing activities protect <p> ed by the False Claims Act. It found against <p> Yesudian on his allegation that false claims were submitted in <p> violation of the Act. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to <p> support the jury's verdict on both claims. He was transferred to the Purchasing Depart <p> <p> <p> ment in 1983. Noting <p> that Yesudian had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/96-7225a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The University said he was terminated for insubordination. Yesudian claimed he was discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing activities protect ed by the False Claims Act. It found against Yesudian on his allegation that false claims were submitted in violation of the Act. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on both claims. He was transferred to the Purchasing Depart ment in 1983. Noting that Yesudian had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-15411.man.html">UNITED STATES V. AM. STATES INS. CO. (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15411)<BR></A><BR> American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Ubarri</SPAN> was on brief. Cornier was the general manager. Their relatives to divert United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Christopher M. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. We also affirm the District Court's sentence because it was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032522p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The American public is very familiar with the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/001368p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972486P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> JURISDICTION Jurisdiction in the district court is based upon 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in this court upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The appeals were timely filed pursuant to Fed. BACKGROUND FACTS This case involved a scheme to obtain money in which appellants falsely represented that their employees were union members entitled to union scale wages. Union dues and other benefits when in fact only a small number of such employees were union members. Who is Vince Kelley's father. Even though he was not a member of a special category. Even though he was contractually obligated to operate as a union 3 employer. One of the contracts was the Procter & Gamble plant in Neelys Landing. (Fru Con) was the general contractor. PAVCO bid on and was awarded three 2 year contracts for 1991 1993. The Craftsmen Independent Union (union) prepared an </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/A25861083CCAE39188256D01007E429B/$file/9916129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The specific question we address is whether an Indian tribe may administer TANF. Welfare oversight and funding were centralized in the hands of the federal government from the mid 1930s to the late 1970s.1 During the 1980s. TANF was intended </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0245p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine who has the right to conduct a review for privilege of documents subject to a grand jury subpoena directed to a third party who possesses the documents but has not yet produced them to the government: the targets of the investigation whose rights of privilege are potentially implicated. We will address them together. 1 Nos. 05 2274/2275 In re Grand Jury Subpoenas 04 124 03 and 04 124 05 Page 2 These cases arise from events leading up to the 2003 bankruptcy filing of Venture Holdings LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1125.html">CRATER V. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee United States.<span style= </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Soccer City is a for profit corporation engaged in the The Honorable William H. While we find that Plaintiff did in fact have standing. Factual History The facts in this case are largely undisputed. The first site Soccer City tested was found to be unsuitable for construction. So a second site was tested. After determining that the second site was suitable. The Board required any interested parties to submit their bids within the following three weeks in order to have them considered. The Board further required a guarantee from any new bidders that whomever was awarded the contract would reimburse Soccer City for the environmental testing it had conducted. Plaintiff was unable. The day the bids were due. Which was the one from Soccer City. Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine No. 05 2360 Club Italia Soccer v. Page 3 issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The basis for constitutional standing is derived from Article III's </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1233.html">RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY V. ANN M. VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </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/200015411.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> American States informed the Government of its conclusion that the termination was wrongful. Seeking a declaration that it was not required to pay the excess costs. Which was the same amount requested in the 1992 demand letter. American States moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that American States was bound by the contracting officer's final decision. The statute of limitations for </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/2EDC3F65974C048088256E5A00707A82/$file/9935665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fatally injured when a tree fell on him at a logging site on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. Even if a cause of action were stated. We hold that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action 2916 under Montana law and that the discretionary function exception does not apply. Came to the Lone Bear logging site to </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3306.html">JANICE R. BOHAC V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel was <U>Sean P. Injury to family life are recoverable under section 1221 of the Whistleblower Protection Act. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii). We hold that non pecuniary damages are not recoverable and that the government has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to such claims. Where the Board held that it does not have authority under 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii) to award non pecuniary damages. <U>Bohac v. Bohac then sought review in this court.</P> <P ALIGN= </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/2004/03/01-2301.htm">01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result. <p align= </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Gerald M. Are the owners and managers of properties that have provided low income rental housing under several programs sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Once 20 years had passed since the mortgage was issued. HUD was required to ensure that the properties would continue to operate as low income housing and that the property owners satisfied certain other requirements. One of the requirements was that property owners had to be in compliance with all applicable HUD regulations governing the condition of the properties. 24 C.F.R. § 248.145(a)(12). The loans that HUD guaranteed were known as section 241(f) equity loans because the guarantees were authorized under section 241(f) of the National Housing Act. HUD refused to process the necessary paperwork on the ground that Carabetta was not in compliance with certain HUD regulations. Schedule D listed 25 properties the parties agree were to be insured under this provision. Another property was inadvertently omitted from 06 5037. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1430.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brankey were on brief for appellant. L.L.P. were on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from a dismissal of Per Curiam. two contract claims. Kiely ( </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/03/04/021561P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (hereinafter </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/D781319D2E56769888256A080061E0CC/$file/9935665.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was fatally injured when a tree fell on him at a logging site on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. Even if a cause of action were stated. We hold that Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action 2916 under Montana law and that the discretionary function exception does not apply. Came to the Lone Bear logging site to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1048.html">MECH-CON CORP. V. WEST<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36EC4906BDB2B87288256E5A00707A51/$file/9835795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1290.html">P.J. DICK INCORPORATED V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee Secretary of Veterans Affairs.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. 262 in damages to PJD for contract delays that were the fault of the government.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>P.J. 2001).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For reasons of judicial convenience the two separately filed appeals were consolidated into a single proceeding before this court. With the Secretary s appeal treated as the cross appeal for purposes of briefing and argument.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>PJD appeals the Board s denial of its claims for unabsorbed home office overhead damages.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Secretary appeals the Board s conclusion that six separate contract changes (the combined directives ) should be treated as occurring on the same date in calculating the extent of the resulting delay to contract completion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Although we affirm the Board s conclusion that PJD was not on standby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1267.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Weld</U> were on brief. We reiterate only those necessary to decide the narrow issues before us.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516645.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the second time the government has appealed the sentence of defendant appellee Michael Martin. In both appeals the parties have agreed that Martin's advisory guidelines range is 108 to 135 months' imprisonment. The hotly contested dispute both times has been over whether the extremely lenient sentence the district court gave is reasonable. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A factual summary outlining Martin's fraud is attached to his guilty plea. HealthSouth's common stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The price of the company's stock typically will decline. Which plummeted from $3.91 per share to $.11 per share when the massive fraud was revealed. Defendant Martin was employed by HealthSouth from 1989 to 2000. Martin became aware that HealthSouth was not meeting its earnings per share projections. Which showed that HealthSouth was not meeting earnings per share projections made by its Chief Executive Officer ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7C507B5B69F97AB882569F400609101/$file/9835795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ganier is charged with one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503(a) and 2 and three counts of altering. On the morning on which Ganier's trial was to begin. Arguing that it was expert testimony for which the government had not provided a written summary as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). We agree that the proposed testimony was expert testimony for which a written summary should have been provided. Because less severe remedies were not given adequate consideration. 1 Ganier was Chief Executive Officer. A federal task force was formed and began a criminal investigation of the contracts and solicitations as well as various companies associated with John Stamps. Ganier was ultimately indicted on one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice and three counts of altering. In which he indicated that he would offer evidence that the files in question were transferred to the recycle bin rather than deleted. Would have located all or substantially all of the duplicates and similar drafts or versions of the allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5002.html">OLYMPUS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939319.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual Background Waymer was an elected member of the Atlanta Board of Education ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984633.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Insofar as is relevant in this case. Deprivation of a property right is the sine qua non of a wire fraud offense and Adler did not deprive Printgear of anything in which Printgear had a property right. I. Defendant Adler was co owner with Jeffrey N. A Georgia corporation that was in the business of customprinting t shirts. About two weeks after the Olympics were to end. Although the credit was unsecured. As it led the police to rope off the section of Atlanta where House of Blues was located. It was insolvent. They would have no money left either for themselves or to run the business. Which was both the due date on Adler Industries' debt to Printgear and about the date when Printgear learned of House of Blues' breach. However falsely that Adler Industries was still in business and doing well. The wire fraud count alleged that the September 17 facsimile was in furtherance of a scheme to defraud Printgear. The sine qua non of a conviction under the federal wire fraud statute is the deprivation of another's money or property through fraudulent means. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1967.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We conclude that the most recent incident described in the complaint was not actionable. The complaint further alleged that these acts and omissions were discriminatory. Were taken in retaliation for the plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights (i.e. Demonstrated that the plaintiffs were aware as early as 1996 of the need to assert their rights in response to the Secretary's actions. In July of 1999 and concluded that the circumstances there were neither sufficiently similar to those underlying the time barred claims to justify treating it as a continuation of the earlier episodes nor independently sufficient to ground a cognizable constitutional claim. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0414p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) the evidence introduced by the government was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on three of the counts. The repository where many of the items seized by the police are stored. Among those items were large quantities of cocaine that Lieutenant Arthur McNamara had seized during a series of drug raids in the 1990s. He was looking specifically for 30 kilograms of cocaine that he had previously seized from Andres Colmines and 10 kilograms of cocaine taken from William Quazada. The investigation revealed that 101 kilograms of cocaine were missing from the Property Room. One of the packages examined during the investigation was labeled as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5077.html">AM PRO PROTECTIVE AGENCY 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-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/03-3066b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown and Barak Cohen were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. J. Gerald Hebert was on the brief for amicus curiae Campaign Legal Center in support of appellee. 2 Before: GINSBURG. The cash was apparently a reward for Valdes's searching several police databases to supply otherwise publicly available information to the informant. Valdes was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) of three counts of receiving an illegal gratuity </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/005172.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by defendant Robert U. Syme was convicted on several counts of wire fraud. Syme's corporate co defendants were convicted on all counts and are not involved in this appeal. When the claim should have been billed at the (lower) Delaware or Maryland rates. (2) falsely representing that ambulance transport was medically necessary. (4) providing false information about the type of treatment that the patient being transported was going to receive. The principal challenge is that the indictment alleged and the District Court instructed the jury on a theory of fraud that is invalid as a matter of law. Syme 2 contends that the government's theory that he committed fraud by misrepresenting that Pennsylvania was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Arguing that the Court of Federal Claims erred in computing the damages to which it was entitled. Which were made following a trial. The judgment in favor of North Star is reversed.1 The case is remanded to the Court of Federal Claims. Which is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the United States and to dismiss North Star's Second Amended Complaint. It is not necessary for us to reach North Star's cross appeal. The pertinent facts are not in dispute. WAPA is one of four power marketing administrations within the U.S. WAPA is in the business of moving power. A power control area is a bounded subsystem within the larger national power grid within which electrical power levels are maintained at a level equaling their As noted. North Star was a third party beneficiary of the contract between AEPCO and WAPA. This adjustment of power supply to meet changing demand is known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1359.html">NSK LTD. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1522.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was L. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Craig S. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in the data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. . . . (cont.) 05 1522 2 After determining that the Wesleyan system was technically feasible. Was silent as to the safeguarding or use of proprietary data in the Wesleyan system. Did state that the bailment was being made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were E. This contract was an indefinite delivery. The termination letter stated: This termination will not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. IDP decided the warranty costs were threatening its survival and the survival of its parent company. IDP was no longer required to continue to provide warranty and upgrade services under the Desktop V contract. The trial court held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0740p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-9319.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WAYMER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> A. <i>Factual Background</i><p> <p> Waymer was an elected member of the Atlanta Board of Education ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-9319.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WAYMER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> A. <i>Factual Background</i><p> <p> Waymer was an elected member of the Atlanta Board of Education ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1142p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These are appeals from the judgments of sentence imposed on Sidney Dickler and Richard Petrucci after each entered a plea of guilty to impeding the functions of the Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0176n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Robert Turner was indicted on sixty counts of health care fraud related to his company's knowing submission of false insurance claims. The remaining counts were dismissed. Turner also claims that (1) the use of general deterrence as a sentencing goal is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The stamps were used. The plea agreement states that Turner was </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022020.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Westinghouse is the management and operations contractor for many of DOE's activities at the Savannah River Site near Aiken. The training program was behind schedule. Was put in charge of developing a Recovery Plan to get the training program back on schedule. Was a GPC employee who was working at Westinghouse under a contractual agreement known as a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA). Smith's team decided that Westinghouse should hire a subcontractor to design and implement the training program even though cost estimates showed that Westinghouse could have done the work in house for less money than it would cost to hire a subcontractor. Kirkpatrick was Smith's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Fieldale is an integrated poultry company which enters into poultry growing contracts with growers. The Londons leased two other 1 A broiler is a baby chick. farms. The contracts are similar in content. Each contract is a separate agreement for the Londons' various farms: (1) contract for Green Meadows No. 1. The contracts are to run indefinitely or until thirty days after notice of termination by either party. The contracts also give Fieldale the option to terminate on only seven days notice when continuing the contractual relationship would have detrimental effects on Fieldale's business. The Londons are responsible for providing care and oversight for the broilers during the full term of the growth cycle. The Londons' responsibility is vital to the success of the business and encompasses a variety of duties. Such as maintaining adequate water and temperature for the baby chicks and </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-7040.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Covington filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he was a federal employee under the Federal Tort Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/031400P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 in farm program benefits on the grounds he was not a </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964530.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each Loan Status Report gave HLI the false impression that the funds originated from legitimate medical businesses as required by the written loan agreement between MPS and HLI. 2 (2) In the third sentence of the second full paragraph on page 14 of the slip opinion replace the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5057.html">RONALD F. BERKLEY ET AL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1358.html">PROPELLEX CORPORATION V. LES BROWNLEE<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/033648P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant's base offense level is 20. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011739.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Panarella does not dispute that the facts alleged in the superseding information are sufficient to charge him with being an accessory after the fact to Loeper's scheme to deprive the public of his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/06-5225a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With her on the brief were Martina E. Brown was on the brief for amici curiae Population Council. Circuit Judge: The official position of the United States is that eradicating prostitution and sex trafficking is an integral part of the worldwide fight against HIV/AIDS. Congress found that funding the relief efforts of private organizations was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5124.html">FOLDEN, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>Russell D. Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Susan L. <span class=SpellE>Launer</span></u> and <u>Roberta L. The court determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract because they were unable to establish the existence of an implied in fact contract with the government arising from their filing of lottery applications for cellular communication licenses with the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> at 51 55.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the second point. 402(b).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> at 55 60.</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent3>We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that plaintiffs claims are covered by subsection 402(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0033p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The land in question is approximately 150 contiguous acres of real estate in three parcels. I would hold that the facility is limited to Parcel 1. Based on the divisibility of the property into natural units and the admission that no contamination was found outside of Parcel 1. Thus I would hold that the lien is proper only as it pertains to Parcel 1. Va. 1994) (stating that what </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12310.ord.html">TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTH. V. U.S. E.P.A.(1/8/2002, NO. 00-12310)<BR></A><BR> Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/933303P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States argues that the tax is a constitutionally prohibited direct tax on the federal government. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5096.html">UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Howard N. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc E. 106 Stat. 2776 (codified as amended in various sections of 42 U.S.C.) ( EPACT ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>EPACT imposes special monetary assessments on domestic utility companies that have purchased government enriched uranium for the purpose of commercial electricity generation. 535 U.S. 1095 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question whether the assessments constitute unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This issue was raised in passing in <u>Maine Yankee</u>. On the merits we hold that the EPACT special assessments are not direct taxes and do not therefore require apportionment in accordance with the Direct Tax Clauses of the Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></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-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-14647.opn.html">MANGIERI V. DCH HEALTHCARE AUTH. (9/4/2002, NO. 01-14647)<BR></A><BR> A state hospital.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></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-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5142a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5071.html">NEW VALLEY CORP. V. THE UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is currently in the midst of a series of corruption trials in that country. The allegations are that Montesinos committed a host of crimes while he was in office. The picture is one of a man who has never been troubled by anything resembling a moral scruple. The facts about how he was brought to justice form the stage on which this lawsuit plays. 2 For decades journalists and politicians had been leveling accusations of corruption against Montesinos. At 1.1 That alone might not have done him in. As it turned out Montesinos was like a serial killer who relishes the opportunity to relive his crimes he had videotaped many of his dirty deeds. Announced that he was dissolving the intelligence agency and that he would step down after holding new elections. The former spy chief was also something of a magician. He had one more magic act up his Because this is an appeal from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissal. The operative facts are those alleged in the complaint. Where outside sources are cited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C8E3727E24541A88256FC0007FE9C0/$file/0435340.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Also on the briefs was Lincoln Beauregard. 3214 WHISNANT v. Also on the briefs was Kirsten Wilkerson. We hold that the government's alleged failure to maintain safe and healthy premises was not a decision susceptible to considerations of social. I. BACKGROUND Where a defendant in its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) asserts that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law (to be distinguished from a claim that the allegations on which jurisdiction depends are not true as a matter of fact). Which is in the commissary's meat department. The commissary is operated and maintained by the Defense Commissary Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-2017.htm">97-2017 -- U.S. V. DYNCORP INC. -- 2/10/1998<BR></A><BR> DynCorp was required to track and control government issued property. It was the government's responsibility to audit and verify the accuracy of DynCorp's property inventory records. Physically checking the records against inventoried items to insure that the records were accurate. 700 inventory items with an original value of approximately $25 million. <p> DynCorp was paid on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10EC24771E0FA76F8825733D004C6A36/$file/0556654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee South Coast Air Quality Management District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3981_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question in this case is whether the Illinois Department of Transportation violated the United States Constitution in administering a program designed to increase the participation of socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in Illinois highway construction subcontracting. Arguing that the State's 2 No. 05 3981 disadvantaged business enterprise program is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-14647.opn.html">MANGIERI V. DCH HEALTHCARE AUTH. (9/4/2002, NO. 01-14647)<BR></A><BR> A state hospital.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023436p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that he is entitled to the return of certain funds escrowed pursuant to the terms of a non prosecution agreement. Since we conclude that the agreement is ambiguous. We will vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings so that the district court can resolve the ambiguity. Those buildings were located at 311 S. That the returns he furnished to the bank were fictitious and contained inflated income. Was seized by the government pursuant to a seizure warrant executed at the real estate closing. The proceeds are currently worth $87. As will be explained later. In which he claimed to have filed federal income tax returns for the years. Pantelidis's former counsel 5 was aware by then that the government had the same forfeiture claim to the proceeds of the sale of this property: the building was improved using a $1. Which was also attended by an FBI agent. Agreed to have the proceeds of the sale of the building placed in escrow accounts. One of the plans was Pantelidis's. Pantelidis is accused of claiming to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5008.html">DAFF V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFDC1631F893B52388256B56005EC01B/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: At page 14687. Replace the sentence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1267F4D338C95E38825711E008287AB/$file/0450161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hager was a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy who had been assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/003690P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Minnesota were informed by the U.S. Postal Inspector that a website displaying and disseminating child pornography was being maintained in Fridley. No </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/992356P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant hospitals are Unity Hospital. Also named as defendants are hospital employees John Murphy and Allina Health System Corp. Which is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314313.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged in a four count indictment with conspiracy to distribute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5008.html">FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>John H. With him on the brief were <U>David W. The dismissal order was entered on the government s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because we conclude that the government is not entitled to judgment at this stage of the case. The contracts were administered and performed through the Department of Energy (DOE).</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65C442B34133CEAD88256E5A00707D0D/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR> Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44F9745E76FA466688256AE6007F29EA/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0357p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harris ( </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/89905E37452D8DDD88256E5A00707D2E/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </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/B09FA7717F18D78588256AF50001E5AF/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993482P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court1 granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for McClure's breach of contract claim which was tried to a jury. Judgments were entered in favor of the defendants. American Family) are affiliated Wisconsin corporations operating under common management. Dale Mathwich are officers of American Family. American Family is licensed to sell insurance in Minnesota. American Family markets its insurance through exclusive agents whose relationships with it are governed by written contracts which state that they supersede all prior agreements.2 Its exclusive agents are required to sell all types of insurance offered by American Family. McClure and Kemp were both exclusive agents under contract with American Family. No modification of its terms may be made unless that modification is agreed to in writing by the Agent and the Company. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D9B522DE32A804C88256B3B0000C4AB/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235 </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1698.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Is responsible for this failure. In which Maling (and several co defendants) agreed to forfeit property that would have a total value of $2.8 million. 1576 n.4 (2d Cir. 1992) (interpreting the RICO equivalent of 853(n)(7) as implying that the Government does not take good title to forfeited property until after competing claims are determined). Which specifically said that the condominiums were not forfeited. 000 was to fill a gap the gap between the value of the assets forfeited and the $2.8 million Plea Agreement </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0639n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that a remand for resentencing is necessary so that the district court may determine a sentence with the knowledge that the sentencing guidelines are advisory. Count 32 of the indictment was a forfeiture count seeking forfeiture of the interests of defendants John and Emilee Birnie in various real and personal property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)( C). Each was sentenced by the United States District Court to 41 months in prison pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines and. Hanson was the Real Estate Owned (REO) Chief in the department that handled HUD acquired singlefamily properties located in Grand Rapids. His primary duty was to oversee the handling and disposition of HUD properties. Her responsibilities in her role as REAM were to make certain that the property was clean and secure. She was responsible for overseeing the closing of HUD sales of single family properties to third parties. She was to prepare the deed and settlement statement. Have the funds wire transferred to the United States Treasury for HUD. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-3149a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. I. Jake West is the former president of the International Association of Bridge. West arranged to have Worley paid a full pension from the IWU's retirement plan even though he did not meet the applicable 3 requirements. Ten days later the jury was sworn. Or agreements </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-13312.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312)<BR></A><BR> LabCorp is an Atlanta based company that performs medical testing services nationwide and specializes in providing testing on a contract basis to long term care facilities ( </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5104.html">BANKNOTE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC, ET AL. V. U.S., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Norah D. United States.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Timothy P. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David P. Tab stops:.5in'>This is a post award bid protest case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The principal issue is whether the contracting officer applied the proper standards when evaluating bids in a best value procurement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The case turns on the correct interpretation of a solicitation issued by the United States Postal Service (USPS) for the printing. Appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in the Government s favor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We disagree with Guilford s interpretation of the solicitation and conclude that the contracting officer acted within the scope of his discretion by not awarding a contract to Guilford.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We have considered and reject Guilford s other arguments. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-13312.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. LAB. CORP. OF AM., INC. (5/9/2002, NO. 01-13312)<BR></A><BR> LabCorp is an Atlanta based company that performs medical testing services nationwide and specializes in providing testing on a contract basis to long term care facilities ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR> Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/974057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argues that the NLRB lacks jurisdiction over it because the federal government maintains such pervasive control over the terms and conditions of the employment of its Head Start employees that the YWCA is prevented from engaging in meaningful collective bargaining. The purpose of the Head Start program is to provide the </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9408.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408)<BR></A><BR> Managed Risk were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit offenses against the United States. Kelly was convicted of four additional counts of mail fraud (Counts 112 115). 30 32).<A HREF= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9408.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUBA (1/9/1998, NO. 95-9408)<BR></A><BR> Managed Risk were convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit offenses against the United States. Kelly was convicted of four additional counts of mail fraud (Counts 112 115). 30 32).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></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-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1993 is amended as follows: On page 4. Lawrence Sager were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Appellants in this case are former officers of a failed bank. Although the statute in question is not easily construed and the result is a severe one. Are simple. The four appellants in this case were officers of Eliot Savings Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2158VOL2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bicki</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/044029P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which money was never refunded by the proposed sellers when the conveyance was not completed. The agreement was only effective in the event The Honorable Richard H. United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 2 1 approval was received. 056.14 for the trust land even before Secretarial approval was obtained for the transfer. The Cudmores agreed to return Thorstenson's payments attributed to the trust land in the event that conveyance of the trust land was not ultimately approved by the Secretary. Was not part of this suit) for fraud and breach of contract over the land sale. After the evidence was presented to the jury. Were not recorded. Based upon his We have no information regarding the nearly fifteen year lapse between the originating contracts and the creation of the escrow account. 3 2 understanding that it was dismissed without prejudice. This ruling was never appealed. D. State Court Proceedings Against Virginia Cudmore Grover died in February 1997 and Virginia tentatively received a life estate in the trust property under the terms of Grover's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)approved will. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041655p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Baer seeks compensation for what he perceives was his role in the creation and development of the popular and financially successful television series. Who originally was from New Jersey. Is the creator. Chase was producing and directing a Rockford Files </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-9008.htm">98-9008 -- DUKE ENERGY NATURAL GAS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/13/1999<BR></A><BR> We reverse and hold that gathering systems are assets used in the exploration for and production of petroleum and natural gas deposits for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code's Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3050.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were David M. Because we hold that the USPS breached the settlement agreement by not providing needed documents in a timely fashion and that the breach was material. Lary was frequently late for his job as a Tour 2 Window Technician at the Benson United States Postal Station in Omaha. Lary was removed from his position effective March 8. The USPS also agreed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </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/docs/common/opinions/200308/02-5192a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/952541P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Truman Dam and Reservoir Project. </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The court determined that there were issues of fact as to whether the contract modifications violated CICA. Judgment was entered on January 18. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Which was intended to procure a computerized travel management system. Which was acquired by TRW in 1998. Which in turn was purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2002.1 The contract was a five year fixed price requirements contract. Such that the contractor would have to create interfaces with numerous other DOD software products and networks. Operational deployment of the system was to commence at the first DOD site in Defense Travel Region 6 ( </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5042.html">ALVES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5079.html">ADMIRAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Dorothy Ashley Doherty</u>. Of Dallas Texas.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas D. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Trial Attorneys.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Michael M. Have been thoroughly discussed in the decision of the Supreme Court in <u>United States v. Cir. 2001).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It is not necessary for us to expand upon these very thorough decisions. Or thrifts. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This policy represented an attempt to avoid having the government liquidate struggling thrifts and being forced to use FSLIC funds to reimburse depositors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>FSLIC s primary inducement to potential thrift purchasers was a partial forbearance from regulatory capital requirements.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>FSLIC accomplished this by allowing the thrift purchaser to treat the thrift s asset shortfall as a fictional asset.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-3185.htm">01-3185 -- STERNBERG V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 08/13/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5140.html">LA VAN, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stuart E. <span class=SpellE>Schiffer</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022037.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellant West Virginia appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the United States on its claim that West Virginia tax statute 11 27 is preempted by 5 U.S.C. § 8909(f). Whose provisions are now codified in Title 5 of the United States Code in sections 8901 et seq. Who are required to calculate a percentage of their receipts in each taxed category of services. Is preempted by section 8909(f) because providers can. West Virginia argues that section 8909(f) of Title 5 cannot preempt 11 27 because 11 27 is not a tax on the Carriers. Whether the economic pass through effect with which 11 27 may burden the Carriers constitutes indirect imposition of a tax on the Carriers can be resolved only by first determining what an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3345.html">GEORGE W.T. V. HUD ERRATA INCLUDED<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1209.html">RUMSFELD V. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Thomas B. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Donald B. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='mso pagination:widow orphan no line numbers'>The government appeals from the final decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ( Board ) insofar as it held t </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1514.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Lloyd R. Which held that Medlin is not entitled to recover certain increased costs incurred in performing Contract No. Because we find that Medlin's interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation that gives meaning to all of the Contract provisions. Unless otherwise indicated. 2.2.2 Precast Concrete Precast concrete units shall have a compressive strength of no less than 17 MPa. There is no dispute between the parties that paragraph 2.2 permits the contractor to choose between two materials for fiber void retainers: polystyrene rigid insulation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2239.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we have consolidated for decision. Aurora Christian Schools Ocean Atlantic is a real estate development company that is incorporated in Virginia and maintains its principal place of business in Alexandria. Will Counties three of the suburban </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3254.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provides that the rights of an assignee of an account debtor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></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-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/034830D526D0BEA888256D5D007C9E5F/$file/0235150.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Provided simply that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1486.html">CRESWELL V. ALLEGHENY FOUNDRY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1129.html">RANDA/MADISON JOINT VENTURE III V. GREGORY ROBERT DAHLBERG<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Elizabeth D. With him on the brief were <u>David M. S claim is that it encountered excessive groundwater in the performance of its contract with the government. S determination that Randa did not prove either a Type 1 or Type 2 differing site condition is supported by substantial evidence and does not otherwise contain any reversible error. Which were to be ". S direction. <u>Id.</p> </u> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/962433P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a lien priority dispute between a perfected security interest held by Bremen Bank and Trust Company (the Bank) and a federal tax lien. The Bank claims the IRS's levies against Ingredient's contractual customers were wrongful because the tax lien was junior to the Bank's prior perfected security interest in the proceeds of Ingredient's contract rights. Because that money was subject to the Bank's automatic right of setoff under Missouri law. Was a trucking company that transported general commodities. The price of shipping was to be determined by Ingredient's attached schedule of rates. Payment was due upon the completion of Ingredient's performance. Two of the contracts were minimum requirements contracts under which Ingredient's customers. Were required to tender to Ingredient a minimum quantity of goods to be shipped during the contract period. These contracts were effective for a term of one year and were automatically renewed after that from year to year. The third shipping contract was a three year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031448.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in § 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1252.html">HPI/GSA-3C, LLC. V. STEPHEN A. PERRY<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The briefs were submitted by <u>Scott M. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David M. Appeals from the decision of the General Services </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5047.html">HARBERT/LUMMUS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7191a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9C9E731BC998E34882570F2007C1820/$file/0415049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291. All of which were awarded as small business set asides under the Small Business Act. Those contracts were set to expire on September 30. Was re designated under the Small Business Act's HUBZone Program. It is not a HUBZone small business. There are no genuine issues During the pendency of this lawsuit. When reviewing an agency's construction of a statute it is charged with administering. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/005186.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether. These records should include but are not limited to: All business checks. We will refer to the dramatis personae as the target (the target of the investigation) and the attorney (the target's attor ney who is the witness under subpoena). 2 The attorney produced several documents. The government again requested the documents under its initial subpoena and advised the attorney that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310849.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were expropriated from him by the Pakistani government. Beg states that the property was then used for military housing or otherwise transferred to members of the military. Beg alleges that the exchange was accepted by the Lahore High Court but rejected by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The latter court determined the Government of Punjab did not have good title to the second property and refused to recognize Beg's title but invited him to pursue further legal remedies in regard to the original parcel. Beg claims to have abandoned any further litigation 2 in Pakistan. Discussion Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear claims against foreign governments only if authorized by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58807F3D4237981088256C4B007B3701/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitions for rehearing en banc were circulated to the full court and no judge requested a vote on the petitions. Lodi's motion for judicial notice in support of its petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2002 and reported at 2002 WL 1792612 is hereby amended as follows: At page 17. That MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3251.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Defendant Gregory A. He waived </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1334.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Salil P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was William M. The contract was for all necessary work and material for repair of a Secondary Containment System at McGuire Air Force Base. The takeover agreement was incorporated into the original contract and United was substituted as the contractor. The stated contract balance was based upon the payments made to Castle as of the date of termination. That an oral settlement of certain claims on which the parties agreed was entered into for $214. Although adjustment was made for a minor mathematical error. It determined that the amount of the contract balance in the 04 1334 3 </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1528.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was David R. With her on the brief were Peter D. Gonzales's claims are not Tucker Act claims for monetary relief. I When an alien is detained by the Department of Homeland Security ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/94-5017.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERCEDA (4/23/1998, NO. 94-5017)<BR></A><BR> Moore was questioned by FBI and IRS agents and served with a grand jury <EM>subpoena duces tecum</EM> as early as November 1992. When he recused himself <EM>sua sponte</EM> from all criminal cases after news reports revealed he was the target of a grand jury investigation. Criminal defendants who had been tried and/or sentenced by Judge Moore between November 1992 and October 1993 moved for new trials and/or sentencing hearings on the grounds that Judge Moore should have recused himself when he first learned that he was being investigated. Holding that Judge Moore should have recused himself in November 1992.</P> <P> On appeal. The government argues Judge Moore did not abuse his discretion by not recusing when he first learned he was being investigated. Judge O'Kelley abused his discretion in ordering new trials and or sentencing hearings across the board rather than determining whether such action was necessary on a case by case basis. Was investigating Judge Moore for allegedly accepting gratuities worth thousands of dollars from Central Security Systems. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1893p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/183567CB061DC0F788256E4600002C18/$file/0135921.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue in this case is whether. All of the lands listed in Appendix A must be transferred before any of the lands in Appendix C will be made available. Even though the villages have selected some Appendix C lands in preference to Appendix A lands to fulfill their statutory entitlement. Because the Appendix A lands are sufficient to satisfy the villages' acreage entitlements. The villages will be required to accept some tracts of Appendix A lands in place of Appendix C lands that they selected as being more desirable. It is necessary to recite some of the developments leading up to its adoption. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1052.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Excerpts of which from time to time have occupied the attention of no fewer than ten federal and state judges across the nation. The CSRA issue is new to us and the FDCPA issue has not. Neither the propriety of the ceiling nor the Michigan court's treatment of the Georgia court's decree is at issue here. 3 CSRA. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT Bongiorno challenges his conviction principally on the ground that the CSRA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Only $11.2 billion was paid. Where enforcement of support is particularly difficult. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993856.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which have been consolidated before the district court for pretrial purposes. Which is in the business of purchasing such delinquent claims from municipalities in several states. Appendix references are to the appendix filed in Nos. 99 3858 and 99 3859. 4 September 1996. The City and the School District entered into a Purchase Agreement whereby existing claims and liens for unpaid taxes and sewer charges were assigned to NTF.2 App. at 517. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-9535.htm">97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 05/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Argued that the Board was without jurisdiction in these matters because: (1) . The operations at issue are exempt from Board jurisdiction under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/94-5017.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERCEDA (4/23/1998, NO. 94-5017)<BR></A><BR> Moore was questioned by FBI and IRS agents and served with a grand jury <EM>subpoena duces tecum</EM> as early as November 1992. When he recused himself <EM>sua sponte</EM> from all criminal cases after news reports revealed he was the target of a grand jury investigation. Criminal defendants who had been tried and/or sentenced by Judge Moore between November 1992 and October 1993 moved for new trials and/or sentencing hearings on the grounds that Judge Moore should have recused himself when he first learned that he was being investigated. Holding that Judge Moore should have recused himself in November 1992.</P> <P> On appeal. The government argues Judge Moore did not abuse his discretion by not recusing when he first learned he was being investigated. Judge O'Kelley abused his discretion in ordering new trials and or sentencing hearings across the board rather than determining whether such action was necessary on a case by case basis. Was investigating Judge Moore for allegedly accepting gratuities worth thousands of dollars from Central Security Systems. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002409.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Omega Engineering Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the second time this case has come before this court. Since they were not approved by the NIGC. The agreements were invalid and the United States was entitled to recovery of any fees paid by the Tribe for services rendered under the invalid contracts. The United States maintains that it should have been awarded the following additional sums: the interest payments Casino Magic collected as a result of its construction loan to the Tribe. The United States is not entitled to any payment. If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Summary judgment is appropriate. The Tribe secured a loan with BNC National Bank of Bismarck (the Bank) for $17.5 million that was to be paid in installments at the Tribe's request. The loan was set up such that twentysix lenders were each responsible for funding a percentage of the loan. We rely on the version of the statute that was in effect when the suit was filed. Id. at 978 79. 42 1 The Tribe's first draw on the loan was for $6 million. Casino Magic was required to contribute approximately $1.7 million. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1529.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. PSC</SPAN> were on brief. Lopez Bras</SPAN> were on brief. Are members of the New Progressive Party (NPP). This fund was to be</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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/981481A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413455.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government says that this extraordinary downward departure was unwarranted as a substantial assistance adjustment. This is the fourth appeal by the United States challenging what we have called </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/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1087.html">LOCKHEED MARTIN V. WEST<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://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031845p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Michael Don Greene was convicted by a jury of the two counts against him: Count One charged evasion of payment of taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201. Defendant was sentenced to 60 months on Count One and 10 months on Count Two. He also was fined $250. Defendant now appeals his convictions and sentence. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was released from prison on supervised release in early 1998. Which were described by the name of the bank. The account number and the balance as of (1) The allegations were later narrowed to cover only the years 1990 and 1991. The fourth omitted asset was described as a note in the amount of $85. We will provide only a general description of Defendant's conduct as it was established at trial. The allegations of Count Two concerning bank accounts and their respective balances on the date of the Defendant's submission of the false Form 433 A were proven through one IRS special agent's testimony that bank records. The records showed that one of the three accounts was in the name of Defendant Greene doing business as Delta Trading Group. </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/2000/09/99-2011.htm">99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000<BR></A><BR> </strong>District Judge. <p> <hr align= </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034097p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant and remand with directions to grant the Government's request for injunctive relief. Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in York Pennsylvania. The relevant market is the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States. Artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by a low or no growth potential. Is about 15 times larger than its next closest competitor. The other significant manufacturers and their market shares are: 4 Ivoclar Vivadent. There are hundreds of dealers who compete on the basis of price and service among themselves. The relationship is essentially terminable at will. Dealer Criterion 6 was enforced against dealers with the exception of those who had carried competing products before 1993 and were </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9106D5527BB5A3CC88256D95005CD829/$file/0215483.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is race based. 528 U.S. 495. Violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts benefits to only those classified as </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/common/opinions/199802/97-5109a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kravitz and Peter Van Lockwood were on the briefs. Black was on the brief. Were on the brief. Claiming that Prudential had violated the consent decree by making initial damage award offers that were improperly low. Prudential </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee Sun Ship Inc. This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 USC § 46(d) *Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31. 2 alleging both false claims and </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/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1326.html">BILL J. COPELAND, V. VENEMAN<BR></A><BR> For appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Mso bidi font family: </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/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1529.html">W.G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION V. CALDERA, LOUIS<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David M. This section also contained the two provisions that are at issue before us paragraphs 1.4.B Qualifications and 1.4.C Standard of Quality:</P><DIR> <DIR> <P ALIGN= </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD56EB1FEB830BA6882570650056DD30/$file/0317082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The False Claims Act provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/189C67912C778CAF882570F1007ABDB0/$file/0335306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question presented in this case is whether a non Indian plaintiff consents to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court by SMITH v. SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE 107 filing claims against an Indian defendant arising out of activities within the reservation where the defendant is located. Who is not a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0266n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 No. 03 2341 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT WILL TOLLIVER. Plaintiffs appellants Will Tolliver and Tradco. Tolliver alleges that in April 1993 he was contacted by representatives of the NNPC who proposed an engineering project to him. The district court held that Tolliver had offered no admissible evidence establishing that any of the commercial activities alleged in the pleadings were performed by representatives of the Government Defendants. It concluded that the Government Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because their sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. A plaintiff must also establish that the actions or conduct in question were actually performed by the sovereign in question. The principal factual support for Tolliver's contentions is his affidavit describing how he entered into the contract and fulfilled his duties under it. Which was estimated in the contract to be $25 million. He was unable to authenticate it as a contract signed on behalf of the NNPC. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5114.html">VARILEASE TECHNOLOGY GROUP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5136.html">GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FSB V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Carter G. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Ronald W. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Jonathan F. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stuart E. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeanne E. Trial Attorneys.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Jane M.E. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8303E5DF3879933888257077004F85C1/$file/0335911.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Cigarette tax contracts must provide that the state will not impose any tax. Joan Wilbur are enrolled members of the Tribe and the operators of a retail store located on trust land within the Swinomish Indian Reservation. LOCKE 12849 (State) alleging that the State and the Tribe were negotiating a cigarette tax contract. The Tribe was not named as a defendant. 43.06.460 are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5115.html">GILBERT M. HAIR AND ETHEL BLAINE MILLETT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>Mark B. Line height:200%'>This is a takings case. Line height:200%'>It is plaintiffs claim that. That the taking of their property is in violation of the United States Constitutional requirement that private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation. <a style='mso footnote id:ftn2' href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="423"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7130.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Joanne L. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Melbourne A. 2004 letter ( </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964433.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.'s challenge to his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process Clause rights were violated when the district court refused to force his father. In which he contends that the district court had insufficient evidence to conclude that he was guilty of the conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The district court should have considered arson to be his underlying offense. In which they contend that the government did not prove that the murder was committed in return for anything of pecuniary value. We hold that any error the district court may have made by refusing to allow Walter Hernandez. Sr. was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 Jr.'s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for hire. We conclude that because there was testimony that Antonio Hernandez. There was evidence to support the convictions of all three of them for murder for hire. Was in poor financial condition. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-4433.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ (5/21/1998, NO. 96-4433)<BR></A><BR> Jr.'s challenge to his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process Clause rights were violated when the district court refused to force his father. In which he contends that the district court had insufficient evidence to conclude that he was guilty of the conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The district court should have considered arson to be his underlying offense. In which they contend that the government did not prove that the murder was committed in return for anything of pecuniary value. </P> <P> We hold that any error the district court may have made by refusing to allow Walter Hernandez. Sr. was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jr.'s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for hire. We conclude that because there was testimony that Antonio Hernandez. There was evidence to support the convictions of all three of them for murder for hire.</P> <P ALIGN= </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issues The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Including: The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-4433.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. HERNANDEZ (5/21/1998, NO. 96-4433)<BR></A><BR> Jr.'s challenge to his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process Clause rights were violated when the district court refused to force his father. In which he contends that the district court had insufficient evidence to conclude that he was guilty of the conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The district court should have considered arson to be his underlying offense. In which they contend that the government did not prove that the murder was committed in return for anything of pecuniary value. </P> <P> We hold that any error the district court may have made by refusing to allow Walter Hernandez. Sr. was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jr.'s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for hire. We conclude that because there was testimony that Antonio Hernandez. There was evidence to support the convictions of all three of them for murder for hire.</P> <P ALIGN= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5167.html">CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES V. US<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David W. Are undisputed.</P> <P ALIGN= </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5181.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because we conclude that the lease is ambiguous with regard to the issue of the CAM charges. The United States Postal Service is a tenant in the shopping center. Acquired the shopping center through foreclosure and is now the successor landlord to the lease. Two disputes have arisen between Kimco and the government. The government contends that its responsibility is limited to three percent of the CAM 05 5181 2 charges for the shopping center's general parking area. Asserts that the government is responsible for three percent of the CAM charges attributable to the entire shopping center. The parties disagree about whether the government is required. The lease provides: It is mutually understood that the U.S. Postal Service will be responsible for their proportionate share of all applicable common area maintenance charges . . . . The lease states: Tenant will be responsible for any and all general maintenance for the common area maintenance for his 38. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-3095a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Questions about the propriety of such an instruction and the circumstances when it may be given have frequently been the subject of opinions in the other circuits. Have received little attention in this court. A D.C. corporation Smith founded that was </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964433.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.'s challenge to his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process Clause rights were violated when the district court refused to force his father. Sitting by designation. district court had insufficient evidence to conclude that he was guilty of the conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The district court should have considered arson to be his underlying offense. In which they contend that the government did not prove that the murder was committed in return for anything of pecuniary value. We hold that any error the district court may have made by refusing to allow Walter Hernandez. Sr. was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jr.'s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for hire. We conclude that because there was testimony that Antonio Hernandez. There was evidence to support the convictions of all three of them for murder for hire. Was in poor financial condition. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2151_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to a term of seventyeight months. Macari pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to promote arson in interstate travel and one count of aiding and abetting arson and was sentenced to a term of forty six months. Thirty six months of Macari's sentence were to be served concurrently with a ten year Illinois state sentence he was presently serving on a related. The remaining ten months of his federal sentence were to be served consecutive to his state sentence. Macari appeals only the ten month portion of his federal sentence that he was ordered to serve consecutive to his state sentence. Because we are unable to ascertain from the record whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence on Macari under an advisory guideline scheme. With respect only to the question of whether his ten month consecutive sentence is in accordance with the procedures outlined in United States v. Stating: </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5093o.html">JUDGE TERRY J. HATTER JR. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Ellen E. With her on the brief were <U>David W. IT IS ORDERED THAT:</P> <P ALIGN= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5055.html">TURNER CONSTRUCTION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Michael A. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James W. Plenary review is given to the court's legal conclusions. Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Massachusetts Bay Transp. Cir. 1990).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The interpretation of contracts is reviewed as a matter of law.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Seaboard Lumber Co. v. Cir. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Contracts between the government and private contractors are subject to the general law of contracts.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Mobil Oil Exploration &. Line height:200%'>When a dispute arises as to the interpretation of a contract and the contractor's interpretation of the contract is reasonable. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5347a.html">BROWN REGINA C V. BRODY KENNETH D<BR></A><BR> With him </P> <P>on the briefs was Michael P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. </P> <P>Lewis. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order </P> <P>of the district court. We affirm the district court's order granting sum </P> <P>mary judgment for the Bank because Brown has failed to </P> <P>allege any legally cognizable adverse employment action and </P> <P>because her attempts to discredit the Bank's account of its </P> <P>employment decisions as a web of pretextual artifice is thor </P> <P>oughly unconvincing.</P> <P> I</P> <P> Brown </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5001a.html">TAYLOR JACQUELINE P V. RTC<BR></A><BR> </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-3220.htm">97-3220 -- FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORP. V. U.S. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR> PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND <p> This is the third appeal to this court and the seventh published opinion involving disputes over the conservation and liquidation of the long gone but not forgotten Franklin Savings Association. <em>See</em> <em>Franklin Sav. This court has distilled the following summary of the litigation from <em>Franklin II</em>. <em>See </em>35 F.3d at 1468. <p> In 1990 the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS ) determined that FSA was </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/FCE1972AF7F0010488256C9500638647/$file/0135766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The answer to that question is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9ED28F4C4A61936882572430060DCB7/$file/0555556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Bly Magee had failed to overcome the False Claims Act's jurisdictional bar that precludes private actions based on public disclosure of allegations unless the relator who is bringing the action is an original source of the information. She initially suspected CDR of filing false claims while she was serving as the executive director of Southern California Rehabilitation Services. Bly Magee continued to investigate what she believed was CDR's misappropriation of federal funds. We have affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bly Magee II. While Bly Magee II was pending. Which is the subject of this appeal. PREMO We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's final order. Public Disclosure Through Bly Magee II [1] The False Claims Act deprives the district court of jurisdiction over a qui tam action that is based on allegations or transactions previously publicly disclosed. Unless the relator is the original source of the allegations. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). </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/06D97F07AF20A33288256C0C007D9461/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety ( </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0011p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attempted to have a government witness killed. The parties have stipulated that Chandler is African American. One of the very important questions is whether or not you would be able to serve on the jury if the trial were to last from three to six weeks. Your response was that you are not able to sit on the jury. Have you had an opportunity to think about that response recognizing that it's an important obligation of citizenship to serve on a jury when called. It certainly is inconvenient for everyone? Are you willing to serve if you are selected? If I have to. I will. If you were selected would you then hold it against either of the parties? Would you hold it against the government or the defendants if you were selected to serve? Do you recognize and agree that it is an important service that we are all required to perform from time to time? CHANDLER: I recognize that if I have to do it. Could you tell us if it is not such a great invasion of your privacy as to why you're so reluctant to serve? Do you understand that under our system of law every person is equal and every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williams was also convicted of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Because there was no reversible Booker error. Which was later traced to the defendant Williams. Who LNM claimed was her daughter. When these pictures were not received. The message was followed by a computer hyperlink. The nude children in the photos were approximately five to fifteen years old. Williams was charged with one count of promoting. Or that is intended to cause another to believe. Williams was also charged with one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Williams filed a motion to dismiss the pandering charge on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. While the motion was pending before the trial court. There are two types of child pornography. Child pornography images of both types are typically circulated through the Internet. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Roy & Cook was on brief. Allen & Snyder was on brief. These plans comprise what is familiarly known as the state retirement system. The key provisions of both plans are ordained by statute and both are administered under the aegis of the Board. 2 The law authorizing the MEP affords each of Rhode Island's thirty nine municipalities the option of deciding whether or not to participate. Its eligible employees are required to become members of the plan and must contribute six percent of salary until they have reached the maximum amount of service credit attainable. A qualified employee is entitled to a life annuity upon retirement in the amount of two percent of his or her final salary times the number of years of total creditable service (up to thirty seven and one half years). A person is eligible to retire with such a pension once he or she attains age fifty eight and has logged at least ten years of total creditable service. Under this formulation the only formulation that is germane to this case1 a municipal member's right to a pension vests when he or she meets both the age and years in service minima. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2108.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. Were on brief for appellant. David Jordan and Jordan & Gfroerer were on brief for appellees. Did not (prior to its amendment in 1986) apply to so called </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1602.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Notwithstanding that trial is SELYA. Determined that pretrial orders granting or denying Eleventh Amendment immunity were immediately appealable. M&E was to be remunerated on a time plus expense basis. Bills were due and payable within thirty days of presentment. There are none here. Agreeing with PRASA that the issue in this case is one of law. There are apertures in the Eleventh Amendment's protective swaddling. The Eleventh Amendment will not bar maintenance of the suit in a federal court. XI. 2There is. It is a </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/97-5347a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Michael P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court. We affirm the district court's order granting sum mary judgment for the Bank because Brown has failed to allege any legally cognizable adverse employment action and because her attempts to discredit the Bank's account of its employment decisions as a web of pretextual artifice is thor oughly unconvincing. I Brown </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/981855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Just Wood was to be paid approximately $3 million. Was substantially behind schedule. Just Wood was unable to begin its on site work until August 1996. Just Wood complained that the environmental conditions inside the buildings were unacceptable and that Centex and tradesmen under its control were improperly interfering with the installation efforts. Just Wood then filed suit alleging that it was wrongfully terminated because Centex failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. Was obligated to indemnify Centex against damage caused by Just Wood's breach. A trial was held in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in March 1998. Final judgment was entered in accordance with the jury verdict on March 18. That evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Just Wood responds that the jury instructions were proper. Claiming that it incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case and was unsupported by the evidence. These objections were sufficient to preserve error for our review. </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/014524.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Lawrence Crumbliss was convicted by a jury of embezzlement from an organization receiving $10. Who intentionally misapplies property valued at $5000 or more which is under the care. Crumbliss was sentenced to a term of five years probation with a special condition of 364 days home confinement with electronic monitoring. Which was a departure below the guideline range of 37 46 months based on Crumbliss' ill health. Crumbliss also contends that § 666 is unconstitutional on its face. Who were military dependants. Was the project director. The Cardinal Mental Health Group (CMHG) was hired to provide services and administer the demonstration project. Lawrence Crumbliss was the executive director of CMHG. All its operating funds were advanced by the North Carolina Division of Mental Health ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10094-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10004-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10001-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1796a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 10 months in prison. He claims that the district court incorrectly applied a four point upward adjustment under Sentencing Guideline S 2B1.1(b)(4)(B) on the basis that he was </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Williamson and Brian McKee were found guilty on all charges. Jennifer McKee was found guilty for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. We conclude that there exists a sufficient legal basis for a reasonable jury to have The Appellants raise a host of additional issues for our consideration. I. BACKGROUND The Etowah Solid Waste Disposal Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3140.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The attempt to prove concealment was flawed. Because the government produced no evidence that the defendants failed <hr> to comply with SEC regulations governing the reporting of such personal use and the jury was never instructed regarding the SEC's reporting requirements. Transmission of a required report can serve as the predicate for a wire fraud offense only if the report is itself false or fraudulent. The government alleged that the reports were deceptive because they failed to disclose the great value to the defendants (about $1 million each) of their personal use of corporate aircraft. Were false. Further prosecution of these charges is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. If there was no wire fraud. There was no money laundering. They were based on the failure of the defendants to disclose their personal travel on corporate aircraft in various internal forms used to prepare reports for the SEC. The core issue with respect to these failures to disclose is the defendants' intent. They argued at trial that other Westar officers almost always failed to report such travel and that one could infer that they thought such disclosure was unnecessary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2431.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The safety valve is not available upon demand. All relevant information concerning the offense of conviction and any related offenses).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E65B93FADA9B1B388256D160073EA72/$file/0156266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellants are seven </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE1NjItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1562-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government challenges the sentence on three principal grounds: (1) the sentence differs substantially from the advisory Guidelines range and is unreasonably low. (3) the district court's finding of an inability to pay a fine is clearly erroneous and the failure to impose any fine is unreasonable. The requirement that a district judge provide a written statement of reasons for imposing a non Guidelines sentence1 outside the advisory 1 A non Guidelines sentence is a sentence that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08CC5F1515AAD76988256B5A0065581E/$file/0055795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Nguyen was convicted of eleven counts of loan fraud and sentenced to a thirty month prison term. Although she also owned commercial property in which her office was located. 2189 Nguyen was successful in the appeal of his sentence. Hospital personnel later testified that he was released at five minutes after noon. Unaware that Nguyen was due in prison. Marshal's Office a declaration stating that Nguyen was unable to surrender himself because of these medical problems. Who advised that Nguyen was scheduled for minor. Assuming adequate follow up medical care was available. Again failing to inform the doctor that he was overdue in prison. Had they known he was scheduled to go to jail. They would not have recommended or scheduled surgery. Based as they were on the same grounds that had been previously rejected. Nguyen's location was also a mystery. Sidestepping personal visits and stating that he was under a doctor's care. He apparently was not. Although he later denied that he was living at this second address. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8404.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COPELAND (6/18/1998, NO. 96-8404)<BR></A><BR> Winders was a licensed real estate appraiser and broker who assisted Lockheed in acquiring real estate and off site lease premises. Winders and Copeland have been friends for over 20 years. Copeland was convicted of five counts of accepting kickbacks. Winders was convicted under the same statutory provisions of three counts of providing kickbacks (Counts VII IX). If the person taking the bribe is an agent of an organization subject to the statute.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE1NjItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1562-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government challenges the sentence on three principal grounds: (1) the sentence differs substantially from the advisory Guidelines range and is unreasonably low. (3) the district court's finding of an inability to pay a fine is clearly erroneous and the failure to impose any fine is unreasonable. The requirement that a district judge provide a written statement of reasons for imposing a non Guidelines sentence1 outside the advisory 1 A non Guidelines sentence is a sentence that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1622.html">UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY V. ROCHE<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <span class=SpellE><u>Salil</u></span><u> P. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1217.html">FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION, V. LOUIS CALDERA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>William A. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Scott Lind. ) option exercise in the last year of a five year multiyear contract was ineffective. As follows:</p> <ol TYPE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-8404.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COPELAND (6/18/1998, NO. 96-8404)<BR></A><BR> Winders was a licensed real estate appraiser and broker who assisted Lockheed in acquiring real estate and off site lease premises. Winders and Copeland have been friends for over 20 years. Copeland was convicted of five counts of accepting kickbacks. Winders was convicted under the same statutory provisions of three counts of providing kickbacks (Counts VII IX). If the person taking the bribe is an agent of an organization subject to the statute.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031708.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is. Possession before just compensation is determined and paid in a condemnation action. The main question in this appeal is whether a gas company can obtain immediate possession through the equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction. I. East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (ETNG) is a regional gas transportation company. The procedure for obtaining a certificate from FERC is set forth in the NGA. (2) a statement of the facts showing why the project is required. Notice of the application is filed in the Federal Register. Public comment and protest is allowed. At the end of the process FERC issues a certificate if it finds that the proposed project </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/869670FD772466768825731A008228BA/$file/0355015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6405. The Ministry argues that the Cubic judgment is not a blocked asset under TRIA because Executive Order 12. The reasoning in those cases is inapplicable here. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1549.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeStefano and Lawson & Weitzen were on brief for appellant. Marsh and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. The gist of Cimorelli's complaint was that at GE aircraft engine operations in Lynn. GE employees had altered pencilled labor records in order to shift labor charges from government contracts that were over budget to government contracts that were under budget. Similar alterations were charged with respect to steam turbines made by GE in Lynn. If any recovery were obtained. Extensive discovery was conducted by Cimorelli during the first half of 1992. The motions were referred to a magistrate judge who denied them in June 1992. New discovery motions made by Cimorelli in August 1992 were denied by the district court in September 1992. Arguing among other points that there was no evidence of any false claim against the government. Was apparently promised a share of whatever reward Cimorelli might obtain. The district court found that 3 3 Chipouras' testimony was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-2011a.htm">99-2011A -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SAN JUAN -- 09/26/2000<BR></A><BR> 2000 <p> The court's slip opinion is corrected as follows: <ol> <li> On page 5. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-3114a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A.J. With her on the brief were Mary Lou Leary. Because the judge's questions could have telegraphed to the jury that he disbelieved appellant. We cannot find that the judge's questions were harmless. Tilghman always answered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5172.html">CORE CONCEPTS OF FLORIDA, INCORPORATED V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were<u><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Mary E. also known by its trade name UNICOR ) is a government owned corporation that was created in 1934 to provide work simulation programs and training opportunities for inmates of federal correctional facilities.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Act of <st1:date Year= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. The Labor Department determined that the employees were entitled to back wages under the SCA. Holding that while reformation was the appropriate remedy. The Board would not specify the terms of the reformation until Richlin's back wage liability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6066.htm">01-6066 -- EVANS V. FOGARTY -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR> Irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied. (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. <p> <u>Kikumura v. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the right to relief is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C237E269BC9D58688256C2F005B2403/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 9856. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the Plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing en banc. The Plaintiffs' petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The Defendant's petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/023819P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> JURISDICTION Jurisdiction in the district court was proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Jurisdiction is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. These contracts were on a pay as cut basis. Pay as cut means a per unit price is agreed upon and the contractor pays as he or she cuts and hauls the timber. Defendant would cut particular tracts of timber on a pay as cut basis and would agree to pay for all loads of timber The amount of restitution was $6. The restitution that was ordered is for timber that defendant cut and for which he did not pay the timber owners. 2 2 removed from said tracts on a weekly basis. The investigators were able to identify 541 loads that had been stolen by defendant. Which were summaries of defendant's bank accounts in a spreadsheet format. The presentence report recommended an 11 level enhancement in offense level because the loss was in excess of $350. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/011272P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such a waiver is subject to certain limitations. Andis entered into a plea agreement that contained a valid waiver of his appellate rights and the sentence imposed was not illegal. His appeal is dismissed. That we have often viewed these two rights as synonymous. Both the defendant and the Government hereby mutually agree to waive all rights to appeal whatever sentence is imposed. Reserving only the right to appeal from an upward or downward departure from the Guideline range that is established at sentencing. These issues are left for the District Court's determination. The defendant states that he is fully satisfied with the representation he has received from his counsel. That they have discussed the Government's case. He argues that the conditions of his supervised release are illegal because they are generic conditions imposed without regard to the specific characteristics of his crime as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). A defendant is allowed to waive appellate rights. Every circuit that has considered this issue has reached the conclusion that at least some forms of appeal waivers are permissible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4092_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The company was given 30 days to respond to the proposal. (until it was granted) a temporary restraining order. Saying that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1318.htm">01-1318 -- CHOA V. ROCKY'S AUTO INC. -- 04/25/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E34A0E7AB35AAE8B88256BC8007937BE/$file/0150195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether the appellants' conduct was willful. Bishop also claims that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid. Who is not a party to this appeal. Were employed as managers by American Wireless Cable Systems. It was undisputed at trial that: (1) some Scorporations commonly designate interim payments to their shareholders as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/00-5074.htm">00-5074 -- U.S. V. OVERHOLT -- 10/10/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5NzQtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2974-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of credit card fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 and sentenced principally to a term of probation. Aspinall contends primarily that she (a) was denied due process and the right of confrontation by the admission of hearsay evidence at her probation revocation hearing. (b) was denied due proc