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


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

Your query gun control returned 2201 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to
991 OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the government's petition for rehearing en banc. Was convicted after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. That the proof submitted to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Local police officers were dispatched to a Memphis address and found a young woman upset to the point that she was having difficulty speaking. The officers later learned that the young woman's name was Tamica Gordon. The young woman the police met was apparently also the same woman who made the 911 call. A car pulled up to the address where Gordon and the officers were conversing. A woman was driving the car. A man was in the passenger seat. She pointed at the car and told the officers that the man in it was the same man who had pointed a gun at her. No weapons were found. Arnold was cooperative and did not attempt to elude the police or run away. The gun was in a clear plastic bag when the police located it.
980 OPINION/ORDER
967 OPINION/ORDER
Gardiner argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellants. With him on the brief were David W. Are licensed by the United States Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of Attainder. Is entitled the
967 NAVEGAR, INC. V. US

Gardiner argued the cause and was on the

briefs for appellants.

Mark B. With him on the brief

were David W. Are licensed by the United States

Bureau of Alcohol. Are unconstitutional Bills of

Attainder.

Both the appellants and the government filed cross motions

for summary judgment on both of the constitutional chal

lenges to the Act. Is entitled the

961 OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
931 OPINION/ORDER
Barry Soskin (
926 OPINION/ORDER
Which they knew and had reasonable cause to believe was a school zone. She was acquitted on Count 2. We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. They were off to shoot bottles at a rural gravel pit. In which she was the front passenger and Kelly was the driver. She stated that she put the gun in the car before entering the school zone and that she could have grabbed the gun at any time. Benally believed that she possessed the firearm when she entered the school zone and testified that no one was allowed to take the shotgun from the car seat without her permission. Kelly testified similarly: he would not have driven to the school with the gun in the car if Benally or her sister instructed him not to do so. Both cussing at Kelly and acting as if he was going to smash Kelly's windows with the bat. It appeared that a fight was about to occur. Why Kelly grabbed the gun is a matter of debate.
909 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence that the defendant filed before entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. It was later discovered that the 911 call was placed by 12 year old Diane McKnight. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The girl was later identified as Diane McKnight. McKnight told the officer that her mother and her mother's boyfriend were inside the apartment fighting. After announcing that he was a police officer. Again announced that he was a police officer. The officer asked Bennett where the other person was. Bennett told him that no one else was upstairs. Her voice was shaky and she appeared upset. He was carrying a black school bag. Officer Azzarano handcuffed Myers' hands behind his back as he was lying face down on the floor and proceeded to pat him down. Myers responded that it was
904 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
901 OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether Marlon Garth is procedurally barred from collaterally challenging his guilty plea to the charge of
884 OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
873 OPINION/ORDER
Is granted. Is attached to this order. Ledford responded that he knew he was not supposed to have a gun because he was a convicted felon. Ledford also said the gun was functional. Subsequent tests confirmed that the gun was functional. Ledford was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The government must establish three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of a felony. (3) the possession was in or affecting interstate commerce. Ledford stipulated that he had previously been convicted of a felony and that possession of the gun was in or affecting interstate commerce. The prosecutor]: And where were you? Q: And what was that concern? We have briefed this pretrial and we don't believe that it is hearsay. If you will allow me to refer to it as
854 OPINION/ORDER
Jr. was on brief for appellants.

849 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellant.
838 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. Rogers was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a firearm. Was believed to be hiding. Rogers announced that the officers were lucky they found him before he got to his gun. Or he would have blown his brains out. The gun was fully loaded. Rogers was taken to the police station. Where he was given Miranda warnings. He stated that the gun seized at the apartment was a
832 OPINION/ORDER
We answer this question in the negative and thus will affirm the order of the district court. Joining the City are ASPIRA. Supp. 2d at 895 97 (recognizing that damages of organizational plaintiffs' members
832 OPINION/ORDER
We determine whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when an individual was shot in the course of surveillance. Were pursuing an individual who had fled during an investigatory stop that involved plaintiffs appellants Romeo Carr and Cedrick Wymbs.1 The This investigatory stop at approximately 1:30 A.M. at Jack Peters Grocery Store in Monroe. Was the subject of a prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which the district court accorded the officers qualified immunity for handcuffing Carr. The handcuffs were removed from Carr. They were told that they were free to go. When the police believed that the store should have been closed. Was occurring. Or was about to occur. The district judge concluded that it was reasonable to believe that Plaintiffs [Carr. Others] possessed weapons and that frisking them was necessary for safety purposes. Defendants had legitimate cause to fear for their safety because they were outnumbered. Plaintiffs were in a high crime area known for drug activity. To look for the individual who fled as well as to watch for drug activity.2 While the officers were observing a pay telephone and the street for evidence of drug activity.
827 OPINION/ORDER
Kelvin Mondale Newsom was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of 86 months of imprisonment. Newsom was driven to his mother's residence by a friend. Newsom told Blacksmith that
821 OPINION/ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Jerome Hadley was charged in a single count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was found guilty by a jury following a two day trial. Was sentenced to a 262 month term of imprisonment. Defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing under the rule announced in United States v. Were hosting a few friends and relatives at their residence on North Moore Road in Chattanooga. The dispatcher further advised Officer Williams that the 911 call was on an
810 OPINION/ORDER
That all evidence obtained as a result of the allegedly illegal search is inadmissible. They were looking for Bruce Lagrew. Boswell is Lagrew's uncle. 1 and he told Upton that he had been living in 1 Boswell testified that Lagrew's mother was his sister. It is unclear whether the other officers overheard this exchange. Officer Graham testified at the suppression hearing that at the time of the search it was his understanding that Boswell lived at the trailer. Although Boswell told Upton that Lagrew was not in the trailer home and that Lagrew no longer lived there. Boswell consented to Upton and the officers entering the trailer to verify that Lagrew was not present. Who gave them his name and acknowledged that he was a felon who was recently off parole. While Officer Chamberlin was outside. The case was at Officer Graham's eye level. Where Ruiz was still present. Officer Graham asked Boswell whether there was a gun in the case. Like there was a gun inside.
789 OPINION/ORDER
That § 922(d) is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. Because sufficient evidence was presented at trial for the jury to conclude that Peters knowingly sold a firearm and ammunition to a convicted felon. Peters was a federally licensed firearms dealer from 1994 until his license expired in April 2001. ATF Agent Nick Cheremeta had seen Peters at gun shows and knew that he was no longer a licensed firearms dealer. He employed a confidential informant to determine whether Peters was still selling guns out of his store. 2 The confidential informant. Was born Gary Bruce Wilson and. John was convicted of one count of felony aggravated assault in the Superior Court of Tattnall County. John was given his new name and assigned a new social security number. John's first contact with Peters was on April 11. This is all my personal stuff.
783 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a
780 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court in all respects. Are straightforward. Was apprehended by police shortly thereafter. Although Williams initially denied involvement in the bank robbery and explained his flight from the police as a reaction to having an illegal gun in the car he was apprehended with a paper bag containing $822. [H]e was in another neighborhood other than his own so he had carried it the night before so he had had it with him.
775 OPINION/ORDER
Before us is Raymond Zwibel's appeal from his jury conviction for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Zwibel takes the position that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. (2) the jury was not properly instructed on the issue of constructive possession of a firearm. (3) 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Zwibel was serving the terms of a probation arising out of prior state court felony convictions. Probation officers informed Zwibel that they were en route to Conway's home to conduct an inspection. Whereupon the officers asked Zwibel whether there were any firearms or other weapons in the bedroom. Zwibel responded that his brother in law might have left firearms in the bedroom. Zwibel then walked to a dresser at the opposite side of the room and told the probation officers that
775 LAWMASTER V. WARD

Lawmaster's house while it was unoccupied. When there was no answer. Each version will be set out below. B. Facts according to the Agents Two affidavits were filed along with the motion for summary judgment: one from Agent Ward. One of which was an older dog that was unable to move and was lying in its own excrement. The gas service was temporarily disconnected to prevent a second source of ignition. Determined it was missing a complete firing circuit. After the bomb squad concluded the house was free of explosives. Agent Ward conducted a
772 OPINION/ORDER
Jermaine Frederick was convicted by a federal jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of 138 months of imprisonment. Frederick's challenges to his conviction are without merit. (The raid was pursuant to a search warrant. The validity of which is not in dispute.). The two bedrooms in the apartment were referred to in the subsequent trial as the north bedroom and the south bedroom. Along with several other people who were in the apartment at the time. Another loaded drum magazine was nearby. That were later stipulated to contain marijuana. Some of the marijuana bags were inside a wall safe that contained various documents with Frederick's name on them. He was a felon who was not allowed to possess firearms. Frederick was indicted and charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Turner said that this was Frederick's residence. The north bedroom was Frederick's bedroom. Who believed that he was
769 OPINION/ORDER
Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity.
767 OPINION/ORDER
Orlando Orta was dead and Concepcion Garcia Orta. As will be discussed in more detail later in the opinion.
764 OPINION/ORDER
Is one of the dealers that received this demand letter. Bob's Gun Shop also asserted that the criteria used by the Bureau to target the selected dealers were arbitrary and capricious. 2274 (2002). 2 Bob's Gun Shop suggests this case is moot because the Bureau changed some of the selection criteria for its new demand letter issued in 2002. The change in criteria does not affect the issue in this case whether the criteria used to select Bob's Gun Shop to receive the 2000 demand letter were arbitrary and capricious. 1 BLAUSTEIN & REICH v. See 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).3 The Bureau is required to issue a license to any applicant that meets all the statutory qualifications and agrees to abide by the applicable laws. Or dealer that holds such a license is commonly referred to as a federal firearms licensee (an FFL). Bob's Gun Shop is an FFL dealer. The licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Justice. § 178 was recently redesignated as § 478. The FFL in the chain of distribution must report all or any portion of the information it is statutorily required to maintain for each firearm.
761 OPINION/ORDER
He also claims that his sentence should not have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Laughrin from past traffic violations and was aware his license had previously been suspended. Laughrin over to determine whether he was driving with a valid license. Laughrin admitted he did not have any paperwork with him regarding the car. Laughrin's license was valid. As Officer Riley was speaking to Mr. The gun was easily within reach of both Mr. Michel attempt to reach behind the seat toward the area where the weapon was located. Nor whether he was actually specifically reaching for the gun. The officer also testified he did not have any knowledge as to how the gun came to be in Mr. Michel were told to
exit the vehicle and were temporarily handcuffed while the officers removed the gun. Which neither had a serial number nor was registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Was a Mossberg .410 gauge shotgun with an overall length of seventeen and a half inches and a barrel length of ten and three eights inches.
758 OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
758 OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
753 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 17. Thompson was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal BOWNES. Appellant argues that his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because: (1) the jury was not instructed to find all of the essential elements of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his felony murder conviction under the Commonwealth's theory of guilt. Appellant's convictions are based on the events of November 12. Apparently there was an ongoing dispute between Eddie and various members of the Rodriguez family. There was evidence that several members of that family. One who was believed to be Jose. There was evidence to the effect that appellant agreed to accompany Eddie in order to provide
753 OPINION/ORDER
Defendants appellants Irvin Lamont Upshaw and Rodney Rice are former police officers of the fifth precinct of the Detroit Police Department. Upshaw and Rice were each convicted by a jury of various offenses. The gravamen of their offenses was that they abused their positions as law enforcement officers for personal gain and. Upshaw and Rice were implicated in numerous criminal incidents. Those relevant to this appeal are recounted separately here. Sometimes marijuana sales were made in the back of the store as well. The enclosed area behind the counter was accessible only through a door that Darwich kept locked. Officers Rice and Upshaw were in the store frequently and were seen behind the plexiglass on occasion. Marijuana sales were completed even when these officers were in the store and in uniform. Which was always greater than the usual cash price at which Darwich sold the marijuana. As long as I was down with him. We didn't have to worry about the police and going to jail or nothing like that.
745 OPINION/ORDER
United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: Ronald James Toms (
739 OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. That the proof submitted to the jury was not constitutionally sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Local police officers were dispatched to a Memphis address and found a young woman upset to the point that she was having difficulty speaking. The officers later learned that the young woman's name was Tamica Gordon. The young woman the police met was apparently also the same woman who made the 911 call. The officers inferred that she was describing a semiautomatic weapon. A car pulled up to the address where Gordon and officers were conversing. A woman was driving the car. A man was in the passenger seat. She pointed at the car and told the officers that the man in it was the same man who had pointed a gun at her. No weapons were found. Arnold was cooperative and did not attempt to elude the police or run away. The gun was in a clear plastic bag when the police located it.
739 OPINION/ORDER
P.A. was on brief. Griffin was on brief. Ruffner was on brief. For appellant Mauricio Berguette Meran.

734 OPINION/ORDER
MCCOLGIN Assistant Federal Defender Supervising Appellate Attorney DINA CHAVAR (Argued) This is an appeal by Kyle Irvin from a judgment in a criminal case entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to two counts of being a previously convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Irvin was sentenced to seventy two months in prison. Where Irvin and Daequan were living. Irvin was prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for endangering the welfare of children and involuntary manslaughter. Whether inclusion of the state offenses in his criminal history calculation was plain error. We will therefore vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand for resentencing.1 I. Irvin contends that this was error in view of the lack of direct proof that he exercised dominion and control over all of the firearms. Nor its finding that Irvin was not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Was clearly erroneous.2 A. That he did not have a license for the gun. He was timely.
734 JOHN M.J. MADEY V. DUKE UNIVERSITY

Argued for plaintiff appellant.
734 OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
731 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes.
728 OPINION/ORDER
Robert Thomas was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Told them that he was the one who pointed a gun at her. Thomas ran from the building and was chased by the officers on foot and by squad car. He was caught a few blocks away. While Thomas was being handcuffed. No gun was found. As Thomas was being brought back to the apartment building. Thomas was charged in Illinois state court with possession of cocaine. Was sentenced to three years' incarceration. Thomas was arrested on a federal complaint charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thomas was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment and now appeals. ANALYSIS Thomas's principal challenge on appeal is that two pieces of evidence. Were erroneously admitted at trial. Thomas moved to have a photograph taken of one of his tattoos ruled inadmissible. The tattoo was of two revolvers crossed. The district court ruled that the photograph was admissible. Finding that it
723 OPINION/ORDER
720 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge This is an appeal from a judgment in a criminal case. Was convicted under 18 U.S.C. The most substantial of which is that he did not violate the carjacking statute because. There is a steep path bordered by vegetation and rocks that leads from the road down to the beach. Who was sitting on the beach reading a newspaper. Lake stated that it was an 2 emergency. I'm here to have a nice time. Lake asked if he could have a drink from Clarke's cooler. Said:
709 99-4097 -- U.S. V. RAMIREZ-SOBERANES -- 04/11/2000

Were violated by the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove an African American from the jury panel. Based on information that a suspect named Carlos was selling cocaine out of the unit. Officers then asked the men if any firearms were in the apartment.
709 OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 814 (
706 FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)

The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.

Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.

706 FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)

The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.

Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.

701 OPINION/ORDER
Were indicted in the Western District of Michigan on drug and firearms charges. The defendants were charged in Count 1 with conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. Cobbs was also charged with distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) (Counts 2 and 3). Cornell stated that he would have to go somewhere to pick up the crack. Who was accompanied by a male passenger later identified as Mansour Harrell. The rocks of crack cocaine were individually wrapped in
701 OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs.

Mary T. Were on the brief.

Before: Silberman. Circuit Judge: The defendant in this case was

charged with six related offenses. The defendant contends the evidence obtained

from his house should have been suppressed because it

resulted from a warrantless entry that was not justified by

either the

701 OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: The defendant in this case was charged with six related offenses. The defendant contends the evidence obtained from his house should have been suppressed because it resulted from a warrantless entry that was not justified by either the
698 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. That the jury's general verdict of guilty on the firearm charge is ambiguous and must be set aside. As it was returned on a single charge containing three alleged violations. Two of which were not supported by the evidence at trial. Nieves Burgos asserts that the only alleged violation supported by evidence at trial was itself not supported by sufficient evidence. We conclude that the jury verdict is not ambiguous and is adequately supported by the evidence. BACKGROUND The factual background of this appeal is set forth in United States v. Which for the most part are not disputed. As is appropriate. The rooms often were paid for together. Which was bulging from something concealed underneath. Was met by Nieves Burgos and Pedro Luis Ram rez Rivera (Ram rez Rivera). Nieves Burgos was on one of the room's two beds. The gun was found with a bundle of cash in a zippered bag on a sofa on which Gotay Col n was seated. The bag was located less than two feet from Nieves Burgos. Rooms 310 and 327 were also searched.
698 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Booker argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence must be vacated and remanded in light of Booker v. One member of the arrest team asked Booker what he was doing outside. Booker responded that he was looking for his Newport cigarettes. Booker was charged in a four count indictment for unlawful distribution of cocaine base. The government introduced evidence that the gun was loaded. Although Booker's fingerprints were on neither the gun nor the Newport pack. Expert testimony that guns and drugs are
698 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Sabetta's girlfriend were going out to eat. Sabetta was no longer at the scene.

In the afternoon of September 1. Andino was attacked by two men in connection with a separate dispute. While Sabetta and Andino were searching for Andino's attackers. Which Sabetta was driving. Sabetta and Andino were arrested.

Sabetta was charged in federal district court with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

695 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee.


695 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Who was con victed of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1). Next to which he was standing at the time of his arrest. Cannot be justified as a search incident to arrest because at the time of the search the police did not have probable cause to believe he had committed a crime. That the search was permissible as part of a valid investigatory stop and weapons search under the Supreme Court's decisions in Terry v. Officer Allee Rama dhan of the Metropolitan Police Department and his partner were stationed in an area of southeast Washington. He was with a woman who was holding a white plastic bag. Christian himself was holding three cans of deodorant under his arm. Which was open approximately five or six inches. Ramadhan asked whose vehicle it was. Christian said it was his. Because the driver side door was locked. Felt what he thought was a weapon inside. He
695 OPINION/ORDER
Stewart believed the kits were legal to sell because the receivers on the rifles had not yet been completely machined and the rifles were thus not usable as firearms. Stewart was charged and convicted of one count of felony UNITED STATES v. No charges were brought against Stewart regarding the advertised parts kits that were initially the subject of the investigation. Claiming that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is an invalid exercise of Congress's commerce power and violates the Second Amendment. Notably absent from this provision is any jurisdictional requirement that the machinegun has traveled in or substantially affected interstate commerce. Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he makes a
695 OPINION/ORDER
Because we are unable to ascertain The Honorable Donald D. The firearm in question is a family heirloom Sears and Roebuck 20 gauge shotgun. Lewis was aware that because of his prior felony convictions he could not legally keep his deceased father's prized gun. Because the shotgun was a family heirloom. All other information he provided was accurate. The ATF form was submitted for clearance by the National Instant Check System. Lewis was denied clearance to reclaim the gun. The gun was immediately returned to Lewis's son. Lewis was indicted for possession of the firearm. He pled guilty to both counts and was given a three level downward adjustment to his Base Offense Level for acceptance of responsibility. The guideline sentencing range was seventy seven to ninety six months imprisonment. 2 At sentencing. Lewis filed a motion for a U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11 lesser harms downward departure claiming that his possession of the firearm and false statement on the ATF form were not the kinds of harms that Congress envisioned when it enacted the law proscribing those offenses.
695 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: William Austin Green was con victed in 1991 for
695 USA V. CHRISTIAN MORRIS USA V. CHRISTIAN MORRIS

With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A.

Lewis. Who was con

victed of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C.

695 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. Four people were present at the time: Richard Spinner. Two of them a .380 caliber Colt semiautomatic pistol and a .45 caliber Sturm Ruger semiauto matic pistol were found under the cushions of a couch in the living room. Was found in the closet of a second floor bedroom. Spinner's fingerprints were also found on two other noteworthy items: a .45 caliber bullet. Which was inside the .45 caliber pistol. A box of .44 caliber bullets found in the closet where the semiautomatic rifle was recovered. No charges were brought against Spinner's sister or his mother. Spinner's cousin was prosecuted in a separate proceeding in juvenile court. The ability to control the contraband that was found there. It introduced into evidence Spinner's personal papers that were found in the bedroom. That he had sold 25 ziplock bags of crack to an undercover officer in front of the house at which the search warrant was executed. Which is commonly called an AR 15 rifle. The prosecutor asked Turner:
693 OPINION/ORDER
A jury convicted brothers Everett and Randall Hall and Roy Hall (who is not related to Everett and Randall Hall) of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Hall asserts that he did not know that the alleged silencer was a
693 OPINION/ORDER
I. Souther was indicted for the two counts of bank robbery on November 2. He was sentenced on August 4. Souther's sentence was based upon a three level enhancement pursuant to section 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) of the Sentencing Guidelines for
693 OPINION/ORDER
Daniel Groves was charged in a two count indictment under the
693 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellant.

693 OPINION/ORDER
Nickolas James Conrad was charged in a one count indictment with possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841. The defendant was convicted for possession of a firearm by a felon and for possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. We stated: This statement was clearly improper. There is even less justification for allowing the prosecutor to
693 OPINION/ORDER
McDonald informed the police dispatcher that an occupied white car was parked behind the Oil Exchange on Route 2. That business was closed at that hour of the morning. Who was present at the police station when the call was received. Because the police station and the Oil Exchange are located within the same block on Route 2. Officer Swisher was able to respond to the call immediately. As Officer Swisher was leaving the police station. He also observed two occupants in the car and noticed that the passenger was moving about. The driver of the car was Marlissa Barnes and the only passenger was her fiancé. There was nothing in front of the white car to prevent its exit. Was out of the car and was rapidly approaching Officer Swisher's patrol car. Officer Swisher testified that it was unusual for a driver to approach him in such a manner. He further testified that his suspicions were elevated because her car had been parked behind a closed business establishment and there had been quite a few burglaries in the area during that time.
687 OPINION/ORDER
King and Rudman & Winchell were on brief for appellants. Lucy with whom Richardson & Troubh were on brief for appellee. The district court allowed the motion on the ground that the Boits failed to make a prima facie showing that Gar Tec is subject to jurisdiction under the Maine long arm statute. She declared that Gar Tec is an Indiana corporation with a principal place of business in Lowell. Indiana and is a wholesaler and importer of power tools and products. Rather the gun was manufactured by Kress Elektrik G.M.B.H. of Germany. He placed a written order with Brookstone for the hot air gun that is the subject of the Boits' complaint. Babson also testified that the hot air gun was labelled
687 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee.


684 OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Raymond Molina was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His sentence was enhanced pursuant to U. Sitting by designation. * No. 05 6552 that the assailant was driving a
684 OPINION/ORDER
Seschillie's sole defense with regard to all the shootings was that he did not intend to pull the trigger of his .357 revolver. Each time the gun was fired he and someone else were struggling for control of the gun. We must decide whether jury conviction should be set aside because (1) the trial court prohibited Seschillie's expert witness from testifying about the possibility that the gun was accidentally discharged or (2) because the trial court ordered from the courtroom the expert witness Seschillie called to testify to the scientific plausibility of this version of events. Seschillie was drunk when they arrived. You are getting to be too mean. You are a little mean. Webster was on her back and Seschillie was on top of her with the gun pointed at her head. Seschillie was taken to the hospital. Where it was determined that he had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. Seschillie's defense was that the gun accidentally discharged each time it fired. Seschillie planned to have his only witness (Seschillie did not testify).
682 98-8064 -- U.S. V. TOMPKINS -- 03/29/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Torren Reed Tompkins appeals his conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

679 OPINION/ORDER
Nevins was on brief for appellant. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for appellees. Because Speen failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that he was a Crown employee for the purposes of his federal and state statutory claims. The first was that Speen was not a Crown employee. Rather an independent contractor who enjoyed no protection under the applicable statutory provisions.2 The second was that Speen had not produced sufficient evidence to allow a jury to conclude that he was maliciously discharged because of his age in violation of Massachusetts common law.
676 USA V. HAWKINS ALLEN R.
673 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.
Raymond Dean Brown was convicted after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 115 months for the first two counts and 360 months for the third. Brown asserts (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of carrying a machine gun during and in relation to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Which was located near Rock Springs. Brown was cooking methamphetamine. Brown manufactured methamphetamine almost continuously from the time they returned to Wyoming at the end of October until they were arrested in mid November. Brown's initial instinct was to escape via Albertsons' back exit. They were surrounded by police. Who were seeking Ms. Brown's machine gun was later found in an unzipped bag and loaded with two magazines of bullets. Worrell was arrested. Brown was also arrested. While he was being questioned by the police. He was captured after he hurt himself during the escape and was taken to the hospital. Where a one gram package of methamphetamine was recovered from his sock.
673 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan.
673 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan.
671 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With her on the brief were Robert J. The District Court held that these claims against the District were barred by appellant's failure to file a timely D.C. That after he was pursued by officers. Finding that
668 OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of possessing ammunition. Felons are prohibited from having
668 OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted with him on the drug charges. Their appeals have been consolidated. Numerous trial and sentencing errors are alleged. McLee argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him on the firearms charges. Both defendants contend that certain evidence predating the conspiracy was erroneously admitted. That their right of cross examination was erroneously restricted. That the government's wiretap evidence should have 2 Nos. 04 1507 & 04 1535 been excluded. They also argue that factual findings made by the district court at sentencing were clearly erroneous. I. Background Trial evidence established that McLee and MurphJackson were intimately involved in all aspects of a largescale cocaine distribution operation run from the south side of Chicago by a man named Kevin Turner. Turner and other subordinate members of the conspiracy were indicted along with McLee and Murph Jackson. McLee and Murph Jackson were paid a salary by Turner for their services. McLee was originally Turner's righthand man and the person trusted to have control over the cocaine during the period between purchase and sale.
668 UNITED STATES V. WACKER

The modifications are as follows: 1. These defendants were charged only with firearm
668 OPINION/ORDER
Because BATF's issuance of the letter was limited to federal firearms licensees who had violated federal law in failing to comply with firearms trace requests. The system is designed to assist law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations. FFLs are required to provide information such as the purchaser's name. FFLs are also required to respond to BATF trace requests within 24 hours. BATF adopted new internal procedures because some FFLs were not adequately complying with its trace requests. Plaintiffs claimed that the letter was invalid because it had been issued by an official who lacked authority to do so. The regulations are prescribed either by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegates. FOPA was intended to reduce the regulatory burden on law abiding firearms owners without incapacitating 1 27 C.F.R. § 178.126(a) states. The current regulation is otherwise identical to the version prescribed in 1968. Two provisions of FOPA are relevant to this case. In relevant part: The Secretary may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. . . .
665 OPINION/ORDER
Mims was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Police Department was patrolling the area near Thirteenth and Quindaro Streets when he observed a speeding car. Mims was then
665 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee.


665 OPINION/ORDER
Jr. were on brief for the appellant Ellen D. Were on brief for the appellees. FitzGerald was on brief. The section further provides that
663 97-8024 -- U.S. V. WILSON -- 12/22/1997

Circuit Judges.

660 OPINION/ORDER
1995 is amended as follows: On page 35. Substitute
657 OPINION/ORDER
(2) concluded there was sufficient evidence to convict him of being a felon in possession of guns. Boyd argues he is entitled to reversal of his conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct before and during the trial. I. FACTS After having received information from a confidential informant (CI) that cocaine was being sold in the lobby area of Cole's Motor Lodge in St. The door was opened by a male. Garrett saw a Ruger .357 Magnum handgun on the floor only inches from appellant's feet and a plastic cellophane bag containing a substance which was later determined to be cocaine base. Other weapons were found near where Boyd was standing. Exiting the bathroom. ­2­ Appellant was taken into custody and as they left the motel. Boyd produced a Missouri driver's license in the name of Billy Jackson and was booked under that name. A CTR must be filed when there is a cash transaction of $10. The original CTR is sent to the IRS and a copy with an attached surveillance photograph of the customer is maintained by the Casino Queen.
657 OPINION/ORDER
He was sentenced to forty one months of imprisonment followed by thirty six months of supervised release. Sergeant Vaughn Allen of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department was on patrol in Salt Lake County. The officer noticed that the car's taillights were not working. He saw that there were four occupants. As if he were retrieving or concealing something on the floor. The 2
officer later determined that the man in the front passenger seat was Terry Paswaters and that the man in the rear passenger side seat was Mr. Was the driver. The officer testified that he was concerned about the occupants hiding drugs or drug paraphernalia. She responded that her license was suspended. Maciano did not have a valid driver's license. The officers learned that none of the other occupants were licensed to drive. Who indicated that his name was
654 OPINION/ORDER
Defendants Appellants Nakeitha Jackson and Marlos Hines were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. DefendantAppellant Tonya Washington was convicted by a jury of knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. The Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which their convictions were based. Are affirmed. The sentences imposed are vacated and remanded to the district court in light of United States v. The decision of the district court denying Washington's motion for acquittal is reversed. Confidential Informant Bratcher purchased 1 An
654 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Garner was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 2 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Because the challenged testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show that Garner knew of and constructively possessed the gun. Garner was indicted. (2)).2 Garner and Haywood were tried in the district court June 5 to June 13. A multi jurisdictional stolen auto In light of our conclusion that admitting the testimony was not error. We do not reach the government's argument that it was harmless error. Haywood was also indicted on one count of carrying a pistol without a license (in violation of D.C. Which was dismissed on the government's motion. 2 1 3 task force. Haywood was driving the vehicle and Garner was sitting in the front passenger seat. Which was in his waistband. Who was standing behind Moseley. Forward and back
654 OPINION/ORDER
He was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. Lowered the Government's burden of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (3) there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. White was driving. Witness accounts conflicted as to whether the car was purple or black. Witness accounts indicated that the shooter was with a female passenger. Jimenez's girlfriend was Michelle Flores and that she resided at 334 E. The address listed on the truck's registration was also 334 E. Both of whom were in the car with the shooting victim. Flores and her son Gilbert were both present during the search. Gilbert was sitting on a couch in the den with an unloaded .223 caliber rifle next to him. Gilbert indicated that there were other guns in the house. There was a gun safe in the dining room. Not all of the firearms were in the safe. Jimenez was subsequently arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.(1) Prior to trial. Arguing that there were insufficient facts in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause.
654 OPINION/ORDER
McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Defendant was indicted in two counts: Count One. The only error we find is the acquittal. The seriousness with which Congress viewed this conduct is emphasized by the fact 1.
654 02-1276 -- U.S. V. WONSCHIK -- 01/06/2004

We consider (1) whether a jury instruction that defined
654 OPINION/ORDER
Defendant appellant Richard Nance was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court determined that Nance was an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 235 months. Which was at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. As a result of a routine patdown of McPhearson during which drugs were discovered. While the warrant was being obtained. Nance was subsequently indicted and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm
652 OPINION/ORDER
While Reed was making dinner. While they were talking. Henyard told her he was going to a night club in Orlando and to see his father in South Florida. The Lewis girls were crying and upset. This is Satan.
652 OPINION/ORDER
Ledarro Northcutt was charged in a three count indictment with (1) possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. Before us now is Northcutt's appeal from that conviction. In which he contends the evidence was insufficient. The jury instructions did not properly convey how the jury was to analyze whether he possessed the crack cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. Two Pittsburgh Police Officers were conducting surveillance of a black 1986 Ford Mustang. With whom the officers were familiar. The car was towed and inventoried. Concerned for the safety of Freeman's daughter and believing that Northcutt was in the house. Northcutt was then indicted for possessing with intent to distribute less than 5 grams of a mixture and substance containing crack cocaine (in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C)). Freeman testified that Northcutt was watching television at home when all relevant events occurred. Which actions were not consistent with personal use.
652 OPINION/ORDER
A High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. The officers have appealed that ruling. Is nevertheless of significant importance. Because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable. The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. As they are the nonmovants in this action. Defendants Nelson Moxley and Bobby Ray Perdue are and were at all times relevant to this opinion employed by High Point as animal control officers. Moxley and Perdue were charged with enforcing the various High Point ordinances governing dogs. The ordinance defines
652 03-4119 -- U.S. V. PARKER -- 03/24/2004

Circuit Judge.

652 OPINION/ORDER
States that he has a gun but makes no reference to his willingness to use it is subject to a two level sentencing enhancement for a
649 OPINION/ORDER
1998 and was sentenced on October 6. Finding that he was not actually innocent of the § 924(c) charge and thus declining to answer whether actual innocence is sufficient grounds to waive the period of limitations for filing of a § 2255 motion. Inspector Bennett agreed to the methamphetamine for guns deal and stated he would inform Montano when the guns were available. He was immediately arrested. Montano was arrested with approximately 117.2 grams of methamphetamine in his possession. Montano's presentence report also reveals that he was involved in a 111.1 gram cocaine transaction on October 20. Montano was indicted on May 28. 1998 and Montano was indicted along with three co defendants: Ignacio Chavez Mendez (a/k/a
643 97-4138 -- U.S. V. RITH -- 01/19/1999

(2) all incriminating statements should have been suppressed because they were involuntary. He was in custody for purposes of Miranda. (3) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the admission of a certificate showing nonregistration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Background

Officer Mikkel Roe of the West Valley Police Department was dispatched to a residence in West Valley City. Officer Roe was informed en route that Sam Rith and his wife were concerned about firearms they had seen their son carry into their home. The address to which Officer Roe was dispatched was the residence of friends of the Riths. Fearful of guns and afraid that their son was involved in a gang. The Riths requested that Officer Roe check the home and ascertain if the guns were stolen. He gave the officers a house key so that no damage would be done to the house in the event they were not otherwise allowed entry.

643 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. Meade was acquitted of all remaining counts. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (
643 OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that
641 OPINION/ORDER
If such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed[.] 2 Section 2251A(b)(2) provides. Who was then thirty eight years of age and living in New York City. Who was having trouble with her family and at school. Which was also Megan's fourteenth birthday. Was grounded. She was not allowed by her parents to leave her home or use the Internet or telephone. Buculei was nonetheless determined to see her again. Notwithstanding the red light that was illuminated on the front of the video camera. The camera was not working. Because she was still dizzy. Megan was back in bed at home before her father awoke at 6:00 a.m. Meeting Megan soon after she was dropped off by her school bus. Later that evening the authorities were called and Megan was interviewed. Buculei was then detained while a search warrant was obtained for his residence in New York. Buculei was thereafter indicted in the District of Maryland for five separate violations of federal law.
638 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1. There is no indication that they were running to give her aid.
638 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Wilma A. Defendant An dre Clark was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 90 months in prison on each count. He challenges his convictions on the following grounds: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to warrant conviction on any count. Clark also contends that he should only have been convicted once rather than twice for unlawfully possessing both a firearm and the ammunition with which it was loaded. We agree that defendant is correct. Police officers Otis McGinnis and Daymeion Harris stopped an automobile that was traveling over 40 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. Andre Clark was the driver and sole occupant of the car. The document was a cellular phone contract in the name of Paul Green. After a radio check disclosed that defendant did not have a valid license. He was placed under arrest for driving without a permit. The first place he looked was under the rear of the driver's seat. Clark also told the officers his name was Paul Green.
638 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Billings & Silverstein was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Contending that his involuntary emergency admission was not. He was sentenced to five years probation and ordered to pay a $100 assessment. Chamberlain was involuntarily admitted. The application further stated that
638 00-6129 -- U.S. V. HANEY -- 08/29/2001

Circuit Judge.

638 USA V. CLARK ANDRE P.

With her on the brief were Wilma A.

Lewis. Defendant An

dre Clark was found guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 90 months in prison on each count. He challenges his convictions on the

following grounds: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to

warrant conviction on any count. We reject all of these challenges.

Clark also contends that he should only have been convicted

once rather than twice for unlawfully possessing both a

firearm and the ammunition with which it was loaded. We agree that

defendant is correct. Police officers

Otis McGinnis and Daymeion Harris stopped an automobile

that was traveling over 40 miles per hour in a 25 miles per

hour zone. Andre Clark was the driver and sole occupant of

the car. The

document was a cellular phone contract in the name of Paul

Green. After a radio check disclosed that defendant

did not have a valid license. He was placed under arrest for

driving without a permit.

Officer McGinnis then began to search the passenger com

partment.

638 OPINION/ORDER
I. Ian Flores was indicted on June 30. Flores No. 05 4091 Page 2 suppress seeking to suppress the gun found in his home by officers who were searching for a fugitive and also to suppress the statements he made concerning ownership of the gun. Marshals Task Force and police officers from the Lorain Police Department were looking for a murder suspect named Anthony Villa. The officers had received information that Flores was a close associate of Villa's. 1 Flores testified at the suppression hearing that Villa is his first cousin. Flores No. 05 4091 Page 3 were hiding there. Flores said that he was not surprised that the officers had come to his house looking for Villa. Detective Earl asked Flores for verbal consent to search the house to see if Villa was hiding there. He also testified that none of the officers said anything that was intimidating. There was a factual dispute at the suppression hearing concerning the location of the gun when it was found. The bed was not made. Was being questioned by one of the marshals.
635 OPINION/ORDER
Kevin Young was convicted of first degree murder for shooting and killing Joseph Sutton during a robbery at the Charles Steak House (the
635 OPINION/ORDER
635 OPINION/ORDER
Jr. and the
632 U.S. V. WILLIAM AUSTIN GREEN

Argued the cause for appellant.
630 OPINION/ORDER
Who was arriving for work. Cruz promptly called 911 to report what she suspected was a robbery. Observing red dye stains on the front passenger seat and scratches and scrapes on the outside of the vehicle that were caused when the car struck the entrance gate to the condominium complex. She was aware that her co defendants had intended to rob the bank. I didn't really believe that they were going to actually rob the place until we arrived and they got out of the car and proceeded to go into the bank.
627 OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that
627 UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<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> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0357p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rains's suicide indicated that the .25 caliber ammunition used in his handgun was purchased from Bend of the River.1 Although appellant claims that it does not recollect ever selling ammunition to Mr. A sales receipt and cashed check are evidence that William West. The ATF served appellant with Notices of Revocation of its four federal firearms licenses for selling handgun ammunition in violation of the Gun Control Act ( </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-5007.htm">02-5007 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 01/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1493.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lopez was sentenced to sixty months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He also appeals the district court's decision not to impose a sentence reduction under USSG § 3B1.2(b) because he was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-7052.htm">99-7052 -- HORTON V. MASSIE -- 01/31/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Cynthia Butler Horton appeals pro se from the denial of her habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-5354a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ugol were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Bean were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Marine Conservation. Hawkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation. Kamenar were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. III was on the brief for amicus curiae American Land Foundation. Which is located only in California. An insect that is native to the San Bernardino area of California. The habitat of which is located entirely within an eight mile radius in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County. The district court held that application of section 9(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to the Fly is a valid exercise of Congress' power pursuant to the Commerce Clause. We affirm the district court's decision to grant the government's motion for summary judgment.1 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when all of the submissions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1535p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The federal courts which have considered this issue have reached different conclusions. We hold that it is sufficient for the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant possessed a conditional intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to the carjacking victim in other words. A rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in this case had such an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. Pamela White was inside her mother's home when she noticed Mark Stanley sitting at a table appearing jumpy. Who was inside the car. Who was still carrying the gun in his hand at the time. Tennessee was washing a car belonging to a friend. Anderson told Tennessee that </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-3021a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA5NjgtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0968-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the sufficiency of the evidence is in issue. Members of the Rochester Police Department's Violent Crime Team received information from a confidential informant that Marcus Snow and his associates were selling cocaine and cocaine base out of three apartments on Sixth Street in Rochester. One of which was in the same drawer as $6. Officers were also executing search warrants at the other two apartments. Procaine is a product used to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC965F7C79368A3D88256D96006F583F/$file/9750468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants were charged with various offenses arising from their involvement with the Mexican Mafia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. SHRYOCK 12843 of the several issues are contained in the portions of this opinion in which those issues are addressed. The factual recitals are based on trial testimony and other evidence that the jury could reasonably have credited in reaching its verdicts. Appellants were named in a thirty one count superseding indictment charging them and ten others.1 The charges stemmed from Appellants' involvement with the Mexican Mafia. Testified that the Mexican Mafia is a prison gang formed in the 1950s by Hispanic street gang members incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institution. Benjamin Peters and Victor Murillo were tried together with Appellants. Ambrose Gill's case was severed and he pled guilty following Appellants' trial. 1 12844 UNITED STATES v. As members were released from state custody. The gang had numerous associates who aspired to become members and were willing to commit crimes on the Mexican Mafia's behalf in hopes of attaining membership. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2187.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cos and accepting the district court's factual findings because they are not clearly erroneous. Cos's friend lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the search and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Cos by telephone but was unsuccessful. That they were </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F473016C338D86D88256BDE008098EC/$file/0036062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing a motorist. Is a detective with the Boise City Police Department. Where his wife and daughter were ushers. Detective Smith estimated that Hennessey was driving 70 m.p.h. in a 30 or 35 m.p.h. residential zone.2 Detective Smith turned on his blue police lights and gave chase. Officers were already looking for Hennessey when Detective Smith radioed the dispatcher. Despite it being Another person driving home from the concert said Hennessey was only driving 40 m.p.h. when Hennessey passed him. Detective Smith turned on his police siren and radioed his dispatcher that he was pursuing a car </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4099.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The two cases were consolidated for trial. The government sought and was granted authorization to wiretap the phone of Jose Aparicio. Ramirez and his associates concerning the drug trafficking enterprise and corroborated information from an <hr> anonymous tipster that hidden compartments were being installed in vehicles at Mr. Ramirez was the suspected supplier. Ramirez was suspected of supplying. The suspected purpose of the visit was to supply Mr. Ramirez are described in greater detail below in the context of a motion to suppress. Ramirez will </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-15301.man.html">PATTERSON & WILDER CONSTR. CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/15/2000, NO. 99-15301)<BR></A><BR> W asserts that the Government is responsible for the alleged misconduct of two private pilots who were hired by the Government to obtain the aircraft and carry out the mission because during the mission those pilots were acting as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2571.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Franklyn Liranzo was a passenger in a car stopped by Massachusetts state troopers in the fall of 2001. A Llama .380 semi automatic handgun was found underneath his seat. Liranzo was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He challenges his conviction on the grounds that 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish Liranzo's constructive possession of the firearm. 2) admission of testimony by the arresting officers about their assignments to a gang task force was prejudicial error. They noticed that the Nissan's rear license plate was only hanging by a single screw. Who was also in the general area in a separate unmarked police car. He carefully observed the two front occupants of the car and paid particular attention to their hands partly because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC4077C9DA2B6E0888256D7500833120/$file/0135954.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether she is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background Kenneth Haugen and Glen Tamburello were in business together selling drugs and occasionally fixing cars. It was a windy morning. The Riddles complained to Haugen that the spray paint was blowing into their yard. Officer Brosseau had learned that there was a felony no bail warrant out for Haugen's arrest based on drug and other offenses. When she arrived Tamburello and Atwood were in the process of getting Haugen into the pickup. The pickup was parked in the street in front of the driveway. The Honda was parked in the driveway in front of the Jeep. The Jeep was in the driveway facing the Honda and the street and was angled somewhat to the left. 10590 HAUGEN v. Hid in various bushes and other locations around the neighborhood as he tried to watch what was happening at his mother's house. Rounds was at home and was aware of the situation outside because she had been listening to a police scanner. She called police and said that there was a man in her backyard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4177.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit an armed bank robbery and of being a felon in possession of a gun. Was acquitted of bank robbery and of using or carrying a gun in the commission of an offense. On the two counts of which he was convicted. There is no evidence that until then the defendant. Had been aware that any of his coconspirators was armed. This was the entire evidence that Rawlings possessed a firearm. No instruction was given regarding the meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0301p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wesley Hargrove was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appeals his sentence on the grounds that his prior felonies were not violent within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-15301.man.html">PATTERSON & WILDER CONSTR. CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/15/2000, NO. 99-15301)<BR></A><BR> W asserts that the Government is responsible for the alleged misconduct of two private pilots who were hired by the Government to obtain the aircraft and carry out the mission because during the mission those pilots were acting as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9144E5C8EFBF07488256F1500754569/$file/0256648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants appellees are Albert Ruegg. Who are federal Bureau of Alcohol. Was released on parole on February 20. Was rearrested on February 3. While Jamerson was in custody. Jamerson's last known residence was on the list. The officers admit they had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Jamerson was involved in any crime. They were simply searching parolees as a way to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4140.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Andrew M. We have consolidated the present appeals for purposes of disposition. Various other relatives of David Walker who have asserted claims arising out of the shooting and the subsequent detention. Case No. 05 4038 is an appeal by the plaintiffs. Cases 05 4016 and 05 4025 are brought. Who was named in both his individual and official capacities. Were dismissed without prejudice.(1) Aplt. Sheriff Bateman was dismissed in (1) The notice of appeal that Officers Monson and McDaniel filed in Case No. 04 4140 included a number of Utah County related defendants as appellants. Only Officers Monson and McDaniel are parties to the appeal. We have adjusted our caption accordingly. <hr> both his individual and official capacities. We refer to the municipal entity to which summary judgment was granted. The significance of the operative facts differs according to the appellate context of each appeal.(2) We will therefore begin with a recitation of the basic facts contained in plaintiffs' district court complaints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/04-7149a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\09-26-05 SITTING\04-7149 NOVAK V. CAPTL MGMT CORP\OPINION\04-7149 OPINION DRAFT 19.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jonathan E. Circuit Judge: Twelve to fifteen thugs criminally attacked and permanently injured appellants Dominic Novak and George Valdivia as they were leaving a bar and dance club in the District of Columbia. The attack occurred late at night in an alley that was immediately outside the only exit from the club and was the most common path for departing patrons. The District Court concluded there was no such duty because the club did not exercise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/987541.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Victor McDene Applewhaite and Lydia Grouby Romero allege that their conviction for numerous federal and territorial crimes must be reversed because the evidence presented at their joint trial was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict.1 1. That because motor 2 The defendants were convicted of conspiracy in violation 18 U. They were also convicted of the territorial crimes of attempted first degree murder in violation of 14 V. We agree that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the defendants' convictions for carjacking under 18 U. We will therefore reverse as to that count of the indictment. We will affirm as to the remaining counts. vehicles are </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/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3044.html">DERRICK A. WILEY V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On the brief was <u>Martin J. Argued for respondent.<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>Neal J. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Natalie R. 2001).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We reverse the Board s determination because we conclude that the search of Wiley s car was unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <h2 align=center style='margin left:0in. Tab stops:.5in'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>Wiley was employed by the agency as a teacher in a Miami. Wiley was investigated for allegedly bringing a weapon onto Institution grounds ( the 1997 investigation ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>No weapon was found in that investigation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>On November 29. Wiley continued to keep a gun in his car in the Institution parking lot.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </ </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051191np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> William Haas was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of a single count of gun possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Haas was sentenced to twenty four years' imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We hold that the District Court misapplied the Federal Rules of Evidence and allowed evidence to be introduced against Haas that should not have been. We will vacate Haas's conviction and remand for a new trial. I. Haas was on parole in March 2003. Haas admitted that he was using heroin. Was placed under arrest for violating his parole. Was the getaway driver. While Haas was the gunman. Was indicted on the federal charges on November 19. Her description of the other robber's disguise and gun was consistent with the items found in Haas's truck. The District Court found that the March 19th robbery was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="608"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCCA5E5E7F2EBF2088256CD1005B853B/$file/9917551.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America. I Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051118np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Swank and Sanderson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-3080a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. One of whom was Appellant Melvin Goddard. Were wearing black coats and blue jeans and that there was a substantial difference in their heights. Only two were close to 5'8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE0NTQtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1454-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such that the firearms were in his personal dominion and control. The period of imprisonment was within the range specified in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that Barraza had been jointly responsible for drug stash houses where firearms were kept and exercised personal dominion and control over those weapons. Was not entitled to a two level reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(9). Which is accorded to one who meets specified qualifications for the safety valve. The district court found that Barraza's offense level was 35. Which provides for such an increase where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951996P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stephanie Cannon and Keith Anthony Cannon were convicted of various drug and firearm conduct offenses. in They of challenge their the validity of their and convictions. A reasonable jury could have found the following. An undercover officer with the West Central Minnesota Drug Task Force. were videotaped. When the parties were introduced by a confidential informant. Defendants sold cocaine base to Agent Sherbrooke and told him they were interested in acquiring firearms. again in Alexandria within a week. Defendants sold more cocaine base to Sherbrooke less than a week later. interested in When Sherbrooke asked Defendants whether they were still obtaining firearms. Defendants again indicated their The parties made arrangements to meet The first transaction was recorded on audio tape. He explained that the When Sherbrooke deal would have to take place in North Dakota. Because there was an arrest warrant out for his supplier in Minnesota. kidded Defendants about their reasons for wanting the weapons. Defendants said they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3175.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant/Appellant Jerry Lee Williams was found guilty following a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Lacy indicated that two customers who had been sitting at the back of the restaurant had told him that a black male at a table in the back of the restaurant was waving a gun around underneath the table. Lacy testified that he recognized the two customers because they were regulars. The first patron to report the gun waving incident indicated that the man with the gun was sitting in a group of six individuals in the corner of the restaurant. Were sitting. Williams was intoxicated to some degree. Who was sitting in the chair nearest the officers. There was a discrepancy in the testimony about exactly where Williams was seated. While everyone agreed that Miller was seated on the outside of the table near the walkway. The officers testified that Williams was seated a little distance away from him. Testified that Williams was sitting right next to Miller. The officers repeatedly told Williams and Miller to place and keep their hands on the table so their hands were visible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031338p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is the IJ's decision that we review. No mean task here because the IJ's opinion is cursory. We understand the IJ to have concluded that Berishaj's testimony regarding past persecution was not credible. Country conditions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which embraced Montenegro at the time of the IJ's decision) had changed such that Berishaj could no longer have a well founded fear of future persecution. That Berishaj's CAT claim failed because there was no objective evidence that a return to Montenegro would expose him to torture. The IJ misapplied the law in concluding that changed conditions in Montenegro have obviated any persecution claim that Berishaj might once have had. The burden of showing changed country conditions is on the government. We will therefore grant the petition for review of the decision insofar as it rejected Berishaj's asylum claim. We will deny the petition for review of the IJ's CAT decision. As we will explain in greater detail. In many cases in which country conditions are at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3050a.html">U.S. V. DWAYNE CASSELL<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BC66DCED0A8F2A2E88257116000ABD37/$file/0430302.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that two sentencing enhancements violated the Sixth Amendment because the factual basis for them was not proven to a jury or admitted by Knows His Gun. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the sentence imposed on Knows His Gun. I Knows His Gun was indicted by a grand jury on July 17. He admitted that the victim was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA649965A29A8D8988257265005DDE9D/$file/0416976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary delegated this authority to what was then called the Bureau of Alcohol. Because any distinction between the two Bureaus is irrelevant to the disposition of this case. We will use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1754.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Rankin & Sultan were on brief for appellant Brian Smith. Were on brief for appellee. Mark Duggan was in Charlestown. Who was the mother of Smith's son and Duggan's former girlfriend. Who was thirty to forty feet away. There was a standoff. Was the godmother of Smith's and King's son. Which was parked nearby. Veneau pulled his friend Viens back from Smith as Smith was pulled into the center of the Lincoln's back seat. Who was still outside the Lincoln. Who was lying in the street. One of the entry wounds was in his left front chest. While the exit wound was in the right side of his chest. Viens was uncooperative. One of the casings was found approximately fifteen to twenty five feet from where Viens was lying when the police and paramedics found him. The other casing was recovered an additional ten to twenty feet away from the first casing. Smith and Yanovitch were arrested on the basis of a complaint. Smith and Yanovitch stipulated that they were convicted felons at the time of the shooting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611684.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only issues on which Stewart was granted a certificate of appealability are whether Stewart's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) provide the mental health expert witness with all available information to identify possible mitigating circumstances. While he was hitchhiking. Who was visiting the grandparents. Trial counsel argued that Stewart was guilty of aggravated battery and manslaughter or. Trial counsel thus believed that Stewart's testimony </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014857.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: James Worrell was convicted by a jury on two counts of mailing threatening communications. Worrell contends that the district court erroneously excluded expert testimony regarding how his unmedicated mental condition affected his behavior at the time the threatening letters were mailed. I. Worrell was incarcerated for an unrelated crime when he became convinced that Theresa Roberson. Who was due to be released from prison in late 2000. Worrell wrote to Theresa that he knew she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lunt & Duncan were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Defendant appellant Charles Powell was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). He was then sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months' imprisonment. Powell was standing outside of his truck. He was holding food and conversing with Arvetta Boykins his girlfriend and Boykins' mother as the two women sat in the truck. The truck was parked on Boston's Humboldt Avenue near its intersection with Ruthven Street and across from Humboldt Liquors. As this conversation was taking place. There were four young men in the Subaru. Each of whom was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood pulled up. The men in the car yelled something to a couple of young men Chris Cheney and Ernest Rhodes who were standing out on Humboldt. Knowing that trouble was brewing. Powell had returned to Humboldt Avenue and was talking with Cheney and Rhodes in front of Humboldt Liquors. He had his hand in his jacket pocket and was leaning to his left. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDAC9ABEB56A002488256D410074AE59/$file/0110739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the motion should have been granted and thus reverse the contrary orders of the district court. Were investigating an incident involving a game of Russian roulette that had ended in a shooting death. DAVIS 7937 Davis when they learned that he might have witnessed the incident. She called Stephanie Smith to warn her that the police were coming and told Smith not to let them into the apartment. Smith was the only person there. That the second bedroom was occupied not by her. That Davis' belongings were in that room. Who was last to testify regarding the search. Provided an account that was. Dyer testified that Smith had told the officers that the room where Davis' belongings were found was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-3050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. On the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Appellant Dwayne Cassell was charged in a five count indictment with. 9 mm semi automatic fire arm that fell from underneath the rear bumper of Cassell's car while it was being towed. Cassell was convicted of both firearms charges.1 Cassell appeals on grounds that the evidence of his two prior gun possessions violated Rules 404(b) and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evi dence. Hart is Dwayne Cassell's uncle. Who was present during part of the search. Was carrying $1429 in cash on his person. From other parts of the house the police 1 Cassell was also convicted of two other charges that are not relevant to this appeal. recovered additional marijuana. Cassell's car was impounded and towed from Sursum Corda. The government contended that the evi dence was probative of Cassell's knowing and intentional possession of the firearms recovered from his bedroom. That his possession of those firearms was not mistaken. The government also contended that the evidence was probative of his criminal intent and state of mind. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/011051.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are liable under a public nuisance theory for the governmental costs associated with the criminal use of handguns in Camden County. Damages were barred by the municipal cost recovery rule. The manufacturers contended that the claims were barred by New Jersey's product liability statute. It also found that the public nuisance claim was defective because the County had not alleged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4015.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter No. 02 4015 1 3 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food. Gillaum indicated that he was all right and did not need any food. Greiber asked Gillaum if he was familiar with the warnings. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He flashed his spotlight at the residence and observed a black male kneeling in front of a window with a long black object in his hand (although Jefferson initially testified that he may have seen the suspect climbing out of the window). He was not sure. He further testified that he was able to get </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1881_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Received a phone call from a girl who reported a group of 2 No. 06 1881 people acting suspiciously outside the building that she was in. Apparently prowling around a car and a nearby building that she thought was supposed to be empty. By this time the police officers at the scene had been informed by dispatch that Michael LePage was one of the group and was reported to be armed. The officer's report states that the bag was half opened and he could see part of a sawed off shotgun. LePage was then arrested. LePage appeals the sentence on the grounds that those enhancements were incorrectly applied. Seizure were made in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and that the district court should have suppressed the shotgun. District court determinations of reasonableness are reviewed de novo. LePage first argues that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him when they arrived on the scene on August 23. Police officers may briefly stop and detain somebody for investigation if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to do so. </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/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-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2703.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Fleischli was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). Fleischli was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. Gibbs told the deputy that Fleischli was a licensed firearms manufacturer who owned a minigun and wanted to add to his collection. The ATF learned that SAS was incorporated in 1996 by Delmar and Diamonda Tobias. Who were Fleischli's father in law and mother in law. Delmar No. 01 2703 3 Tobias1 was listed as president and Medlock was the secretary/treasurer. The ATF was therefore already familiar with Fleischli when Captain Jeff Rhodes called from the Sheriff's Department to tell them about Gibbs' conversation with Deputy Malone. That SAS was Tobias's company and that he (Fleischli) was just an employee. Tobias told the agents that SAS was Fleischli's idea and that Tobias was simply a 1 Hereafter we will use the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1849.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fuentes Agostini with whom Dominguez & Totti was on brief for appellant Torres Maldonada and Gotay Colon. Were on brief for appellee. That their motions for severance and for suppression of evidence were improperly denied. Two of the rooms were registered to false names. Santiago Alicea was wearing a bulletproof jacket. Is not a party to this appeal. 4 4 unidentified individual. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1232.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant James Herron was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). He was on parole at the time and subject to supervision by the parole division of the Colorado Department of Corrections. She was cleared as a buyer when the clerk called the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for a background check. The transaction was observed by Greg Thares. Herron while he was at work and took him to his apartment. The Bersa .380 was not there. The second firearm was eventually traced to its buyer. Herron was indicted on two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Was unable to identify Mr. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(c) (prior statement of trial witness identifying a person is not hearsay). Herron's theory of defense was that his possession was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041223P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who had no identification and said his driver's license was suspended. Who was the front seat passenger and only other occupant. That Gipson was driving on a suspended license. The passenger may have provided false information. A beer bottle was on the floorboard between the driver and passenger. Officer Barnes removed the beer bottle from the Mercury and informed Walker there was a problem. Was dragged to the next intersection while yelling at Walker to stop the vehicle. Received an emergency radio broadcast that a DMPD officer was down. That the fleeing Mercury was in close proximity to her patrol vehicle. The gun was fully loaded. An empty beer bottle and a portable CD player were found on the right front floorboard. Shortly after Walker was arrested. Because he believed there was an arrest warrant out on him. Because he had given false information and because he thought he was going to be arrested based on his belief there was an outstanding arrest warrant on him. Walker asserted he stopped at the intersection and asked the police officer who was hanging onto the Mercury to please let go. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-2256.htm">96-2256 -- U.S. V. DIAZ-ZAPPATTA -- 11/25/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Codefendants Ulises Ramos Fernandez and Jose Diaz Zappatta appeal from their convictions following a jury trial.<a href= </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3162_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the disputed information. Would have led to Baker's acquittal. Malcolm Baker was standing on a sidewalk when two Chicago Police Department trainee officers observed him drinking from a beer bottle. As they were running. One of the officers noticed that Baker was clutching something in his waist area. He radioed the dispatch officer that they were dealing with a possible </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2216.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found Mr. A car show was held at Cahoon Park in Roswell. Vallejos was standing one foot behind Mr. Eric Gutierrez was sitting in the passenger seat. He was met by Mr. Gutierrez as he was on his way out of the truck. Vallejos was still in the truck. Sanchez was also arrested and later pleaded guilty to armed robbery in New Mexico state court. Where he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Sanchez was forcibly taking Mr. He thought the two men were friends and that they were all just going to get a beer together. Vallejos pointed out that he was blind in one eye and had impaired vision in the other and that he was not paying attention to what Mr. Sanchez was doing at the time of the carjacking. Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that he committed either of the crimes charged. Vallejos knew a gun was being used during the carjacking. Arguing that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Mr. The Government must prove four factors beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the offense of carjacking under 2119 was committed by some person. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1939.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. While the other was convicted bya jury of conspiracy to distribute. The sale was to take place the following day. The informant entered the Glency Market which is managed by Feliz and owned by she and/or her husband. The quantity of cocaine was reduced to 1/2 kilogram. The informant was wearing a monitoring device and when the above mentioned delivery was made. Which is across the street from Glency's Market. Almonte was brought back to 173 Colfax. The search warrants were executed later that afternoon. This pouch was found in the closet of the bedroom in which the above mentioned cocaine and money were found. Feliz was standing behind thecash register counter in the market. Almonteand Feliz were charged in a three count indictment with (1)conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. She first claimsthat the cocaine seized at 173 Colfax should have been suppressedas </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024295.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. There is. Because Masserini did not have the H & K in stock. In spite of Masserini's warning that the Llama was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1584p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse defendants' convictions 2 for unlawful firearm possession under Virgin Islands law. We will affirm all other issues raised in this appeal. Defendants' car was stopped for a traffic violation. Were also ordered to leave the car after an officer observed them conversing and looking around inside the car. They were met by a friend whose car they borrowed. The Tec 9 pistol is considered a machine gun under Virgin Islands law because. This weapon is not classified as a machine gun but as a semiautomatic assault weapon. The .38 caliber revolver was positioned between Hall and the juvenile. The Tec 9 machine gun was located on the front passenger side floorboard. The .45 caliber pistol was located on the rear driver's side floorboard where the juvenile had been sitting. A firearms expert testified that each of the three firearms was loaded with ammunition and ready to fire. 3 concealed the three weapons in the car without telling McKie and Henry about his purchase. McKie was driving. Defendants were stopped by the police around 12:30 a.m. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256DFE007B89AE/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are seriously ill Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of their doctors. Such use is legal under California's Compassionate Use Act. That ruling is now before us. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance. (3) that there is </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/05a0856n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was sentenced to 115 months imprisonment. Were also present in the house. After confirming that the Allens were indeed present. Officer Lewis asked Defendant where the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36B0E41DEC954B5888256B56005EE516/$file/9915225.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Supreme Court held that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest. That the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0026n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argued that his statement that he had a gun under his mattress is inadmissible because it resulted from a custodial interrogation conducted absent the warnings required by Miranda v. He argued that the gun itself is inadmissible because The Honorable Solomon Oliver Jr. Because the district court did not make the factual findings necessary to determine whether the public safety exception to the Miranda rule applies and whether the search was valid as a search incident to arrest. Were told that he lived in a room on the second floor. The man replied that his identification was in the pocket of his pants. Jackson asked the man </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0021p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argued that his statement that he had a gun under his mattress is inadmissible because it resulted from a custodial interrogation conducted without the warnings required by Miranda v. This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1320.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stanley Starks and Latray McMurtry were indicted by a federal grand jury on (1) possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and (2) possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Where he was found guilty on both counts. McMurtry appeals his conviction claiming there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that OE Case No. 02 1320 was submitted without oral argument. 2 Nos. 02 1320 & 02 1523 he possessed the drugs. Because the evidence was sufficient to establish that McMurtry was in possession of the drugs and that weapons were present and connected to the underlying offense. Scattered about the floor of the bedroom was approximately $200 to $300 in small bills. Was a paper plate full of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0044n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court's admission of opinion evidence that defendant was acting as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-1549_038.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At sentencing she stipulated to all upward adjustments under the guidelines save one: that she was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity involving at least five participants. On appeal she contends for the first time that she did not have sufficient control over four other participants to warrant that adjustment. Her first recruit was her cousin. Blaylock was the one who chose the date of the robbery. 000 was due to arrive that day. The plan was a failure. The mandatory minimum since the gun was fired. Section 3B1.1(a) provides for a four level increase if the defendant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1374.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mitchell</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Who was attempting to respond to the same incident under a city policy (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that it had proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) and granted both Interstate's and NORINCO's motions for summary judgment finding that guns are simple tools and that the dangers associated with guns are open and obvious. The court concluded that under Michigan law there is no duty on the part of the manufacturer to warn or protect against any known * trigger. This is precisely the operation of the product which. Is reasonably expected. . . . It is an instrument of death. That is its primary function. Only deliberative action will cause discharge. Although Plaintiff argues that he did not know the gun was loaded. That fact is irrelevant. Michigan law does not require a manufacturer to design safety features to protect users from the dangers of a simple tool when the dangers are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942430.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial. The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows: A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. It is not necessary for it to establish that the weapon was fired. It is sufficient if the proof establishes that the firearm furthered the commission of the drug trafficking crime or was an integral part of the underlying drug trafficking crime being committed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942430.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial. The brief fails to provide any citation to the record in support of this assertion. 2 1 A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. It is not necessary for it to establish that the weapon was fired. It is sufficient if the proof establishes that the firearm furthered the commission of the drug trafficking crime or was an integral part of the underlying drug trafficking crime being committed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/94-2430.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MOUNT (11/25/1998, NO. 94-2430)<BR></A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network.</P> <P> In the early morning hours of November 21. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. The police did not discover any ammunition for the .357 firearm in the compartment or elsewhere in the house.</P> <P> Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. (<EM>Id.</EM>) No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial.</P> <P> The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows:</P> <P> A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:</P> <P> <EM>First:</EM> That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/052283P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/023999P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gary testified that he had no knowledge of the gun and that he actually told police that the gun must have come from the street. Testified that Gary admitted the gun was his. That Gary stated his mother was going to claim it was her gun. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Gary was sentenced to a term of 105 months. 2) that the evidence was exculpatory. 3) that the evidence was material either to guilt or punishment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/94-2430.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MOUNT (11/25/1998, NO. 94-2430)<BR></A><BR> The evidence from their investigation revealed that Phillip Mount was at the center of a cocaine distribution network.</P> <P> In the early morning hours of November 21. Mount and a female companion were the only occupants of the house. The police did not discover any ammunition for the .357 firearm in the compartment or elsewhere in the house.</P> <P> Mount and seven codefendants were charged in a twenty two count indictment. Mount admitted that the .357 magnum was his gun and argued that there was no law against having a gun in the house. Hersey also testified that it was his understanding that Mount had purchased the gun from a pawnshop. (<EM>Id.</EM>) No other mention of the .357 was made during the trial.</P> <P> The district court instructed the jury on the § 924(c) counts as follows:</P> <P> A Defendant can be found guilty of this offense only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:</P> <P> <EM>First:</EM> That the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute it. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-5115.htm">03-5115 -- U.S. V. PALMER -- 03/09/2004<BR></A><BR> Defendant Stuart Joseph Palmer was stopped by an officer of the Tulsa Police Department for speeding in a school zone. Defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974976.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Elliotte was driving a Nissan Altima. The robber asked Jefferson and Elliotte whether they were looking for the drug supplier. Elliotte stated that he was going to get his gun. Was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91B9122675AD4E6388257265005CB74A/$file/0416095.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the arrest was invalid because the police never obtained or attempted to obtain a warrant. Was walking near Fisher's apartment investigating noise complaints regarding Fisher's upstairs neighbor. Fisher's apartment is on the bottom floor of the apartment complex and has a sliding glass door leading out to an enclosed patio. Fisher was generally unresponsive. Whether Fisher pointed the rifle at Serrano is not clear: At trial. Serrano suspected that Fisher was intoxicated and. CITY OF SAN JOSE Sergeant Ryan was among the first to arrive. Believed that Fisher was intoxicated. It is not clear whether she put the phone back on the hook. It was busy throughout the remainder of the standoff. Sandra informed the police that no one else was inside the apartment. Who was observing the apartment from across the street. Reported that Fisher was pointing one of his rifles at Ryan and Males. Who were the officers closest to Fisher's apartment and were sheltering themselves behind a tree. Boler also reported that Fisher was moving the rifles around his apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001846.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a civil rights action arising out of the shooting of a pet dog. The plaintiffs/appellants are Kim and David Brown. Police Officer Robert Eberly is alleged to be the primary constitutional tortfeasor. Two of its Chiefs of Police are also alleged to be responsible for Officer Eberly's constitutional torts on various theories. We then examine whether the defendants other than Officer Eberly share responsibility for any constitutional violations that may have occurred. They were in the process of moving. Kim was upstairs packing. While David was loading the car. Officer Eberly was passing in his patrol car. Circling around a vehicle in the parking lot that was approximately twenty feet from the curb. Immi was stationary and not growling or barking. He and Immi were facing one another. We are thus faced with a situation in which a municipal law enforcement officer intentionally and repeatedly shot a pet without any provocation and with knowledge that it belonged to the family who lived in the adjacent house and was available to take custody. 4 II. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2410.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yannetti</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. John Meada was arrested and indicted on weapons possession charges after police discovered firearms and ammunition in his home during a warrantless search. The trial court granted Meada's motion with regard to grenades found in an ammunition can but ruled that other firearms and ammunition were admissible because they were either in a location Meada's girlfriend consented to be searched or were in a container in plain sight that betrayed its contents. Moar inquired for officer safety purposes whether there were any weapons in the apartment. Moar discovered that he had a criminal record and did not have a license to carry a firearm. Then accompanied Bowering to Meada's apartment to collect her belongings.</P> <P> Meada was not home when Bowering and the officers reached the apartment. He discovered two grenades inside.</P> <P> Moar then accompanied Bowering into the bedroom where her personal belongings were stored. It was fastened but not locked. Instructed him to wait in a police car while the officers finished their search and Bowering collected the rest of her possessions.</P> <P> Meada was subsequently indicted on three weapons charges. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0997p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Numerous John Doe defendants who were police officers or federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents. Just as police were commencing a drug raid there. Holding that the Bakers made no showing that either of these defendants was legally responsible for any violation of the Bakers' rights that may have occurred. Refused to reconsider the summary judgment ruling based on an affidavit that was filed out of time under the local rules. Jacquine were approaching the home of Clementh Griffin. It was still light outside. Police from three jurisdictions were launching a drug raid on the same apartment. They were suddenly surprised by officers running past them with guns in their hands. Assuming the Bakers' Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The evidence indicated that Armstrong was inside the apartment while the alleged violations took place outside the apartment. There was no evidence that Armstrong should have trained the other officers to behave differently. For though he was in charge of this particular raid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985522.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The constitutionality of a statute criminalizing an activity that is not directly linked to interstate commerce. The precise question before us is whether it was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to enact 18 U.S.C. Which imposes criminal liability on individuals who possess child pornography that has not itself traveled in interstate commerce as long as one of the materials from which the pornography was created in this case. This statute has a jurisdictional element or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5027.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Matt Lotspeich and Tulsa Police Detective Paul Hutter were investigating an armed robbery. Believing Butler might have some information about suspects. When his wife and daughter were home. There was a knock at the back door of the apartment. Two men were outside. Gomez explained he was having a problem with a person named Alvin. His fear was well founded because Gomez pointed the gun at Butler while explaining the Alvin problem. Although Butler knew it was illegal for him to possess the gun. He did not take it to the authorities because Gomez and Jermaine would be coming back and he would be in danger if they discovered it was missing. Knowing Gomez and others believed cell phones operated by the local mobile phone company were constantly monitored. Butler tried to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3240-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Appellant Thomas Nimely ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9A2B3A02814FA90882571D10053541D/$file/0472798.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ornelas Chavez claims (1) the BIA erroneously required that he must have reported third party persecution to government authorities to qualify for withholding of removal under section 1231(b)(3). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Provides that a signatory nation will not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0030p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That McFarland received an evidentiary hearing to which she was not entitled. McFarland was charged in Michigan state court with eleven counts of possession or possession with intent to deliver various drugs. Some of the pills were found in a closet in the southeast bedroom. Yukins No. 01 1360 prescription paraphernalia were found in a file cabinet in the room. Some pills and packets of powder were found in a safe in the room. A sifter that was of the type used in the cocaine trade and that had residue on it. There were four people who could have been linked to the drugs found in the southeast bedroom. The only person who was actually in the house at the time of the search was a man. A man was described in the affidavit supporting the search warrant as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0164n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> White was subsequently convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). Because this case is controlled by our precedent authorizing a search incident to arrest of any area that is or was within the immediate control of a defendant. Sitting by designation. * No. 03 6418 BACKGROUND Evidence of the following events was presented at hearings held by the district court on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Tennessee Police Department was on routine patrol in his assignment area in East Jackson when he saw a black Datsun pickup truck. He then took off the camouflage jacket he was wearing and put it in the bed of the pickup truck on the passenger side. There were two other people in the truck at the time it was stopped: White's brother. Officer Harris approached White and asked what was going on. Which included an indication that it had been revoked and was not valid for vehicular use. While Officer Harris placed White in 1 This dispute is not relevant to any of the issues presented by this case. 2 No. 03 6418 handcuffs. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D38C1EE1C92A9DF88256B57007FDF49/$file/9799017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pizzuto was sentenced to death. Because Pizzuto filed his habeas petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was enacted. Regardless of when the petition was filed. Pizzuto needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Pizzuto could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Berta Herndon and her adult nephew Delbert Herndon were robbed and murdered and their property was stolen while they were camping in the Ruby Meadows area. The victims' hands were bound behind their backs with shoelaces and heavy wire. Berta's and Delbert's jeans were pulled below their knees. Were camping together that day in a cabin in the Ruby Meadows area. While they were at the pond. He picked up a .22 caliber rifle and said he was going </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964301.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. First he alleges that conviction on a single count of possession of methamphetamine is insufficient to uphold a conviction for use of the mails to commit drug felonies in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 843(b). Drennen argues that his consent to search a duffle bag containing a gun was invalid and he was not sufficiently in control of the gun for purposes of a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Drennen argues that the Government did not have proper authority to remove a package containing methamphetamine from the mails and to hold it for a period of time. I Drennen argues that his conviction on a single count of possession of methamphetamine is not sufficient to uphold a conviction for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="564"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1365p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the evidence showed only that he was in an acquaintance's apartment physically near but not in actual possession of drugs and drug distribution paraphernalia. We will. Philadelphia police officers Michael Kopecki and James Santomieri responded to a call that shots were being fired near an apartment building. Who was holding a handgun. On the coffee table before them were three bags of white powder containing a total of 55.3 grams of cocaine and 42 grams of non cocaine white powder. On the floor was a loaded sawed off shotgun. There was no evidence that either man had been working with the cocaine. Were on the table. No pots or other instruments that could be used to cook cocaine were found with any cocaine residue. No cocaine residue was found on Stallings or Jenkins. No residue was found on the scales. Stallings and Jenkins were charged and tried together. Bags and vials were commonly used by drug traffickers in repackaging drugs for resale. Hershowitz acknowledged that instruments necessary to cut and apportion the cocaine and insert it into the various packages were not found in the apartment. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0379p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged in a three count indictment with illegal possession of the receiver of a Sten MKII machine gun and various other parts </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-5012.htm">00-5012 -- U.S. V. IILAND -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> Sidney Ronnell Iiland and sixteen others were named in a multicount indictment charging numerous offenses involving drug trafficking. Iiland was convicted after a jury trial of distributing various controlled substances. (3) he was prejudiced by going to trial with three other codefendants. (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court held defendants had failed to rebut the presumption that the wiretap orders were proper. Recordings of intercepted calls obtained through these wiretaps were played for the jury at trial. We disagree. <p> Electronic eavesdropping by law enforcement officials is governed by the federal wiretap statute. Under which the officer must establish and the court must find that </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3506.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is a convicted felon. Allegedly for safekeeping while Jefferson was out of town. Jefferson was convicted by a jury of knowingly delivering a firearm to a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) and sentenced to 21 months in prison. Who is a convicted felon.1 Using the handgun's serial number. Correy was arrested on December 2. Both of which were for Correy. Correy gave one of the guns to Melvin so that Melvin could keep it in Melvin's safe while Correy was out of town for about a month. Correy stated that the last time he saw the gun was when Melvin placed it in the safe. Correy was indicted on one count of delivery of a firearm to a felon. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it </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/964698.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. No. 96 4698 OPINION PER CURIAM: William Stephen Javage was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm while a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1997) and sentenced to sixty three months imprisonment. Disappeared while he was with Javage and someone else. The gun was reported stolen to the state police. Where he was read his Miranda1 rights and signed a waiver. Further investigation revealed Javage was a convicted felon. Javage first contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's conviction. This Court will sustain a jury verdict if the evidence. Is such that a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The essential elements of the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) offense are: (1) knowing possession of a firearm. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 rights have not been restored. There was insufficient evidence to convict him. There is no other evidence that Feathers instructed Javage to keep the gun locked in a box. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1241.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming he was injured during the incident due to excessive force. Serna's claims against Gasko were premised on his alleged supervision and control of the team that removed Serna from his cell. Arguing that he was not liable for Serna's injuries under a theory of supervisory liability. So summary judgment should have been granted in his favor. Factual Background Serna was a prisoner at the Colorado Territorial Corrections Facility. Claimed it was loaded. One of the inmates allegedly involved with the gun was Serna's cell mate. Gasko was not at the prison. He was in his office in Colorado Springs. He had authority to activate SORT but was not in charge of the officers who would enter the cell units. He was in his cell during the early afternoon when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60983.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tate asserts on appeal (1) that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict and (2) that the district court plainly erred by admitting his disputed admission of ownership of the firearm. Which he asserts was taken in violation of his Miranda rights. The government contends that the evidence was sufficient Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury's verdict.1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/991503.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was thereby precluded from owning or possessingfirearms under 18 U. S 922(g)(1) because he was a convicted 2 felon. We will therefore reverse the district court's order based upon our decision in Rice v. I. Palma was formerly a marketing director for various casinos in Atlantic City. While employed in that capacity he gave favorable treatment to various entities that were then doing business with the casinos in return for payoffs that totaled more than $100. It is undisputed that Palma successfully completed all terms and conditions of his sentence. That he was granted early discharge from his probation. It is also undisputed that Palma has not had any adverse contact with law enforcement since successfully completing his sentence. Palma was employed by Palma/Lazar Associates as a real estate appraiser. Persons convicted of crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one year are prohibited from possessing. The Gun Control Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to lift the firearms disability imposed under S 922(g)(1) if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/94-2314.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BAILEY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. 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.<p> I. Among the prohibited weapons were three rifles made by H &. Bailey was not permitted to stock weapons for future sale to police departments. Because the weapons were to be sold to law enforcement customers solely.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-60983.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tate asserts on appeal (1) that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict and (2) that the district court plainly erred by admitting his disputed admission of ownership of the firearm. Which he asserts was taken in violation of his Miranda rights. The government contends that the evidence was sufficient Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury's verdict.1 </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that a two level enhancement was warranted because Wynn possessed a destructive device. We conclude that because Wynn's sawed off shotgun is a weapon that will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive and has a barrel with a bore of more than one half inch in diameter. It is a destructive device as defined by Application Note 4 to § 2K2.1. The weapon in question was a .20 gauge shotgun with a modified overall length of 19.5 inches and a barrel length of 12.5 inches. Wynn admitted that the sawed off shotgun was a firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(1) and (2). The Presentence Report further determined that a two level enhancement was warranted because Wynn's offense involved a destructive device as described in 26 U.S.C. 5845(a). He suggested that Application Note 4's language that a destructive device </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/011058P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was injured while using Senco Products. It can drive a single nail when the trigger and the bottom contact point are depressed. When the bottom contact element is depressed and the trigger is subsequently pulled. Lauzon was using the SN2 to roof a garage. He was lying on the edge of the roof while securing a fourteen foot 2 x 6 to the roof sheathing. His left hand was supporting the 2 x 6 under the overhang and his right hand was holding the SN2. Was standing on a ladder underneath supporting the 2 x 6 Lauzon was attempting to secure. Two more nails were driven. Lauzon acknowledges his finger was on the trigger. It being constantly depressed as he was employing the bottom fire pneumatic nailer in its rapid fire mode. He contends the SN2 should not have fired successive nails because the bottom contact point was not depressed. Since it was four to five inches above the roof sheathing. Lauzon testified it was not possible that the bottom contact point came into contact with the sheathing because it would have shot the nails into the wood and not his thumb. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/94-2314.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BAILEY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. 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.<p> I. Among the prohibited weapons were three rifles made by H &. Bailey was not permitted to stock weapons for future sale to police departments. Because the weapons were to be sold to law enforcement customers solely.<a href= </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/2000/08/99-5201.htm">99-5201 -- U.S. V. MALONE -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514475.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a huge. Sitting by designation. 4 cases were consolidated on appeal. Leonardo Nunez Virraizabal a/k/a Noel Chavez Moreno ( </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/2001/09/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> (2) whether an officer conducting a traffic stop may ask the driver about the presence of weapons in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. We hold that the officer's question about the existence of a loaded weapon in the vehicle was justified on the grounds of officer safety. An officer may ask the stopped motorist whether there is a loaded firearm in the car even in the absence of particularized suspicion of the existence of such a firearm. The objective safety risks to officers during routine traffic stops in general have led courts to approve reasonable steps to insure officer safety. The admitted impetus for establishing a checkpoint at this location was the officers' suspicion that the defendant. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </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/2003/12/02-8060.htm">02-8060 -- U.S. V. TOPETE-PLASCENCIA -- 12/03/2003<BR></A><BR> The district court found Topete's base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ( </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=04-2079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Holt</SPAN> was on brief. Emblematic of unsettled political conditions that have plagued the Middle East for many years. On the ground that they were entitled to a binding determination of sovereign immunity (including appellate review of any unfavorable decision) before being forced to bear the burdens of litigation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/032043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Now before this court is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court denying Pomeroy's motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. He is entitled to qualified immunity. We have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. The following summary of the facts is based upon plaintiff's allegations. While plaintiff and Parks were preparing to leave Sunsets. Is it physical? Is it physical? My girls are here. We are. This is the first time I've seen him this bad. Gottstein was the first to respond by radio. Male is [drunk]. The dispatcher reiterated the following information to the officers: </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB498C7EBA119C7C8825726500805543/$file/0530528.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The enhancement was warranted. I have a gun. Who was standing between five and ten feet from the teller. Pike was not followed while riding his bicycle. While Pike was detained in the police car. He made the following unsolicited statement: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1231.htm">00-1231 -- U.S. V. WHITAKER -- 04/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033836P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The mall's owner was insured by Travelers. Were also plaintiffs in the suit below. A Canon model NP 6016 copier was located in the storeroom of Home Video. Service records indicated the copier was upgraded in 1998. The copier was serviced one week before the fire. The locked storeroom apparently was undisturbed until about 7:30 p.m. The employee claims to have left the storeroom and entered a back hallway to smoke. Smoke was spotted in the back of the store. Paul Fire Department concluded that the fire was unintentional and that the copier was the most probable cause of the fire. The plaintiff insurance companies hired several fire causation experts to determine how the copier could have caused the fire. The burned copier was subjected to five detailed inspections between early 2001 and September 2002. Fire causation experts Beth Anderson and Michael Wald each produced reports in October 2002 stating that the copier's internal burn patterns showed that the upper fixing heater assembly caused the fire and that the design of the assembly was defective because it included a thermal fuse safety device that was not properly rated to prevent such a fire. 3 Canon's expert. </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/96-3105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A.J. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Joseph was con victed in 1988 for several criminal offenses including violation of 18 U.S.C. s 924(c)(1). The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a s 924(c)(1) conviction and that the jury instruction defining </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8789.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LEONARD (4/8/1998, NO. 96-8789)<BR></A><BR> The defendants were in a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon traveling north on I 75 through Lowndes County. Peterson was driving. Moore was in the front passenger seat and Leonard was in the back seat. Was the owner of the car. Moore admitted ownership of the vehicle but stated that he did not have any registration. Peterson first told Deputy Sellers that the defendants were traveling from Orlando. Deputy Sellars then indicated that Moore did not have to give permission to search. The defendants were then arrested.</P> <P> A grand jury returned a five count indictment against the defendants. Which is using and carrying a firearm. The word </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8789.man.html">UNITED STATES V. LEONARD (4/8/1998, NO. 96-8789)<BR></A><BR> The defendants were in a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon traveling north on I 75 through Lowndes County. Peterson was driving. Moore was in the front passenger seat and Leonard was in the back seat. Was the owner of the car. Moore admitted ownership of the vehicle but stated that he did not have any registration. Peterson first told Deputy Sellers that the defendants were traveling from Orlando. Deputy Sellars then indicated that Moore did not have to give permission to search. The defendants were then arrested.</P> <P> A grand jury returned a five count indictment against the defendants. Which is using and carrying a firearm. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2265.htm">98-2265 -- WEITZ V. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. -- 05/31/2000<BR></A><BR> Lovelace is the only appellee and the New Mexico state law claims are the only claims remaining in this case. Eddie was an Air Force Staff Sergeant stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. They were seen jointly on December 4 by J. Eddie and Arlene were then seen jointly on December 9 by Dr. Bolinder was apparently employed by Adlerian Therapy Services. Eddie was drunk. Eddie said that he would disown Loretta so that he would not have to pay child support. After Arlene told Eddie she was leaving. When Eddie told Haupt that he felt an examination was unnecessary. Eddie was instead seen by Genevieve Davidge. Davidge observed that Eddie was anxious and that he was unsure of his ability to handle his emotions should he and Arlene divorce. Davidge concluded that Eddie was not an immediate threat to himself or others but scheduled an appointment for Eddie to return the following day for further examination. Davidge concluded that Eddie was improved. None was arranged and Eddie never received additional counseling. <p> During the December 30 meeting between Haupt and Eddie. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2265a.htm">98-2265A -- WEITZ V. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM INC. -- 05/31/2000<BR></A><BR> 1991 </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051519p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented here with a casebook ready fact pattern implicating an area of Fourth Amendment law that has long been a source of confusion. How the exclusionary rule applies in cases in which evidence obtained during an illegal traffic stop is introduced against a passenger with no possessory interest in the vehicle. We hold that when a vehicle is illegally stopped by the police. No evidence found during the stop may be used by the 2 government against any occupant of the vehicle unless the government can show that the taint of the illegal stop was purged. We join all of our sister circuits that have directly faced this issue. We will canvass that caselaw. While they were at the club. Told Mosley that he was leaving the club to go meet her. A dancer at the club who was accompanying Hayes. The source of the information relayed in the radio call is not reflected in the record. As it was pulling away from the nightclub. Hayes and Mosley were arrested and charged with gun possession. The officers did not observe Hayes committing any traffic violation that would have justified the stop under Whren v. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/993400P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict finding him guilty. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 Wright was indicted after he stole a Nissan Pathfinder from the enclosed valet parking lot of a Minneapolis restaurant. The government's principal witness was Kurt Nierste. As the valets were constantly doing. He noticed that there was someone in it. He estimated that this was thirty seconds. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR> His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1298.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Julio Ramirez Burgos was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting in two armed carjackings in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119. He was sentenced to a term of 35 years' imprisonment. (3) the evidence was otherwise insufficient to prove that defendant participated in the crimes. Were each carrying a revolver when they accosted their first carjacking victim. One of the men forced Nancy to cede control of her Pontiac Sunbird. 2 The pair then drove around in Nancy's car searching for a second victim all the while holding Nancy against her will. She was forced to lie low in the front passenger seat. During the rape the car's interior light was on. As they were injecting themselves with the drugs. The two men were arrested at the crash site. Kassandra was discovered in the wreckage wedged beneath the glove compartment. She was pried from the car. Defendant testified that he was not involved in either of the carjackings. The real carjackers (Daniel and an unidentified second man) must 4 have interrupted their crime spree at the same time and place (the housing project) where defendant had gone to buy drugs. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315094.reh.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts pertaining to the chase that covered approximately nine miles and lasted approximately six minutes are as follows. The vehicle that Harris was driving was registered in Harris' name and at his proper address. The deputy radioed dispatch and reported that he was pursuing a fleeing vehicle. He did not relay that the underlying charge was speeding. Where two Peachtree City police vehicles were already stationed. A </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3033b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. Stewart filed a collateral review motion challenging his conviction on the ground that his receipt of firearms was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><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/994.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We affirm the district court's disposition of the claims for which the certificate was granted. (3) that Virginia's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012382U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When Snyder told the Canadian customs official that there was a gun in the trunk of the car. The Snyders were denied admittance to Canada. Canadian officials telephoned United States customs officials to explain why the Snyders were denied entry. After Snyder confirmed the family had been denied admittance to Canada and there was a handgun in the trunk of the car. Snyder was later charged with knowingly possessing a firearm and ammunition after being convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1). Snyder moved to suppress the gun and ammunition on the grounds that the evidence was seized improperly without a warrant. Was unavailing because he had not actually entered Canada. So was not reentering the United States. The jury was instructed on constructive possession. Snyder was convicted. Claiming that the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted. That the jury instruction on constructive possession was so faulty that it deprived Snyder of a fair trial. We reject Snyder's argument that the warrantless search and seizure of the gun were illegal. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=89-1684.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. He says the decision is procedurally flawed because he was not present at his immigration hearing. He argues that the immigration judge should have granted a continuance instead of then ordering him deported. Immigration judges have broad legal power to decide whether or not to grant continuances. Cir. 1989) (no abuse of discretion to deny continuance and proceed with hearing in alien's absence where counsel is present). There is no procedural flaw. Should have permitted him to leave voluntarily. Is highly discretionary. That statement does not imply that the immigration judge was equating </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/00opinions/00-3033a.html">U.S V. MAURICE STEWART<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<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://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-3033b.html">U.S. V. MAURICE STEWART<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<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://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-2292.html">UNITED STATES V. GONZALES<BR></A><BR> (Tr. at 20 21) The purpose of the meeting was to arrange the sale of 100 pounds of marijuana to Mr. Did say they were coming to Albuquerque via Dallas. Officer Torres met Luis Leon at a Circle K in Albuquerque and was introduced to two of Mr. (Tr. at 26) Detective Gloria later joined Officer Torres and the three appellants at the Circle K and showed the appellants a 35 pound bale of marijuana that was in the trunk of his undercover vehicle. The transaction was to occur the next day at 9:00 a.m. Leon were all in the apartment at that time. Leon told Officer Torres to circle the area to make sure there were no police cars in the vicinity. The officer did as he was instructed and passed two marked patrol cars on the way. Leon became concerned and asked Officer Torres if he were a police officer. Officer Torres replied that he was not and that he just wanted to complete the deal. Who was standing next to Officer Torres. Also raised his hands and asked what was going on. A handgun which was concealed in his waistband. </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-3033a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. At the time the brief was filed. Stewart filed a collateral review motion challenging his conviction on the ground that his receipt of firearms was not a </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Moscardelli were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. His appeal is primarily based on multiple constitutional arguments. Sometime after the transaction was completed. By this time it was approximately 2:00 a.m. on the morning of July 15. They were spotted walking along Humboldt Avenue by 2 2 four officers of the Boston Police's Youth Violence Strike Force who were patrolling the area in an unmarked police car. Noticed that Cardoza and Ragsdale were acting indecisively about whether to continue walking up Humboldt. Who was sitting in the back seat on the driver's side. Whose window was rolled down. What are you doing out this time of night? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR> The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40131A1D6CE55DBE88256EA100839DF4/$file/0256197o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. If California's negligence and public nuisance law were so unsettled as to allow for the majority's creative interpretation of California law. We should have certified the issues to the California Supreme Court. A This is indeed a tragic case. A mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun. He was armed with a number of firearms. Is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow. A secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock1 did anything illeGlock is the manufacturer of one of the guns that Furrow used to injure his victims. Glock is sometimes used as a shorthand reference to all the remaining defendants. 1 6854 ILETO v. Plaintiffs allege that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10DB29E36885D3FB88256F8E007FA620/$file/0256895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Anthony Garcia was convicted of robbery in California state court. The jury found that the robbery was gang related. Garcia's sentence was increased because of those two findings. The district court granted the petition on the ground that there was constitutionally insufficient evidence to support the imposition of the gang and gun sentencing enhancements. PENAL CODE § 186.22(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The disputed issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient. To support the jury's finding of the required specific intent: that is. Or assist in </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0341p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a misspelling. The correct spelling will be used throughout this opinion. 1 1 No. 03 3841 Boone v. Page 2 ( </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=06-5124.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges.(2) Te'Aire Curls was convicted. Curls argues that the district court erred in denying his motions (1) to dismiss the superceding indictment on the grounds that the indictment appearing in the public file was not signed by the grand jury foreman. Curls argues that (7) his sentence is unreasonable. We are not persuaded by Mr. Assisted by an agent from the United States Bureau of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Alcohol. Curls was riding. Was Sean Ali Williams. Curls who owned the car and who the driver was. Curls responded that it was his mother's car and that the driver was Mr. Curls </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0028p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Period need not have made explicit reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in order for their identical. There were two people in the car. Shauver and Till were living together at the time. Lowe discovered </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-4238.htm">03-4238 -- U.S. V. PAHULU -- 09/01/2004<BR></A><BR> Pahulu was driving the van and Kirk Sio was a passenger in the van. Pahulu admitted he had been drinking. <p> Ikemiyashiro obtained Pahulu's license and the van registration and determined the van was registered to Pahulu's mother. Pahulu told Ikemiyashiro he was the van's </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0270p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an interlocutory appeal seeking reversal of the district court's summary judgment order denying qualified immunity to the defendant police officers. The right in this context was not </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6320.htm">98-6320 -- U.S. V. MCKISSICK -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> Delmar Anton Zeigler were arrested following a shooting at a nightclub in Oklahoma City. Zeigler was convicted of the drug trafficking charges in Counts Three and Four. The Defendants were tried jointly. Zeigler was sentenced to life without parole for each Count with the sentences to run concurrently. McKissick guilty on all three counts with which he was charged. McKissick was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment on Count One and 240 months imprisonment on Count Three. McKissick was also sentenced to five years imprisonment on Count Five. These appeals are addressed simultaneously in this opinion. The suspect vehicle was a 1970s model green Chevrolet Impala and the suspects were reported to be black males. Zeigler was handcuffed and placed in Officer Thomas's patrol car. McKissick later admitted the car was his. <p> While Mr. McKissick was in the emergency room reception area. Who was also at the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. Simpkins further testified he was in a van with some other men in the nightclub parking lot when they encountered Mr. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0069n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was indicted on both counts on March 12. The defendant was identified by one of the Bank One tellers as the perpetrator of the crime. The teller who was robbed selected defendant from a photographic spread a few days after the robbery. The defendant was further identified by a teller at another bank. The police found a gun in the room of a friend's apartment at which defendant was staying. The government's expert found that money found in the parking lot of Bank One as well as the gun in defendant's room had red dye MRAQ and CS tear gas in a combination that is unique to bank dye packs. The evidence provided at trial was sufficient for the jury to convict the defendant. Determine whether any rational trier of fact could have 2 found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A rational trier of fact could have found. They could find these elements because the evidence indicated that the teller was threatened with a gun and that she was intimidated into giving the defendant money that was owned or under the control of Bank One. </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0NzctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6477-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.* Defendant appellant Edward Gandia was convicted. They were justified in making 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0NzctY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6477-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge.* Defendant appellant Edward Gandia was convicted. They were justified in making 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://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/04-3092a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: When the police have reasonable suspicion that a person committed. Is committing. Or is about to commit a crime. The police have a witness or victim look at the suspect). Unzipping the outer jacket ultimately led the officers to discover that Askew was illegally carrying a gun. Askew's primary argument to this Court is that the initial unzipping of his jacket was an unreasonable search. Where specific findings are lacking. Noticing that Askew was a man with a mustache who </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-4741.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MATOS (9/17/1999, NO. 98-4741)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</P> <P> Jose Antonio Rodriguez Matos ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-3152a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Wilma A. (4) error by the district court in designating a prior conviction of appellant as a crime of violence for purposes of determining the guidelines base offense level.1 Although this is a close case. We find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict appellant of con structive possession of a loaded firearm. We think it prudent to register our observation that designating a prior conviction of appellant as a crime of violence for purposes of determining the guidelines base offense level was mistaken because the court did not 1 Appellant also argued that the firearm and ammunition counts were multiplicitous and hence that one of the two must be vacated on double jeopardy grounds. The government concedes on appeal that appellant's two convictions should be merged and one vacated. 2 We dismiss the threats count on jurisdictional grounds. have before it the necessary information to determine wheth er that conviction constituted a crime of violence as defined by the guidelines. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1261p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thomas Price was convicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of armed bank robbery. Price was charged with violating this provision in the district court. The government is not required to show that the defendant actually displayed or fired the weapon. The government is required. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was under defendant's control at the time the crime of violence was committed. Even though there is no proof that he actually had the firearm in his physical possession. That his action was willful and voluntarily taken and that he had knowledge that a firearm was to be used in the bank robbery. The two issues regarding this instruction are. Whether having a firearm available to assist is sufficient to meet the second element of </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-11329.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FALLEN (7/9/2001, NO. 99-11329)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-3064a.html">USA V. FENNELL SEAN<BR></A><BR> </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-11329.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FALLEN (7/9/2001, NO. 99-11329)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4158.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Al Rekabi argues the trial court's use of constructive possession was too expansive and its view of justification defenses too restrictive. Background The preliminary facts are undisputed. Were playing basketball they noticed a </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-2186.htm">99-2186 -- U.S. V. HECKARD -- 01/08/2001<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to 168 months of incarceration plus five years of supervised release. Background</strong> <p> Defendant was one of dozens of individuals targeted in a three year investigation into cocaine trafficking in Hobbs. Authorities discovered that his cocaine was transported by Texan Richard Baeza to New Mexico residents Mark Sanders and Andrew Pompey. Knew that he was one of Sanders' distributors. Flores was transporting a large quantity of cocaine to Sanders. Was unable to locate him. He told him that he was holding the cocaine for him at his house. Pompey was upset with Flores for letting Defendant keep the cocaine at his house. All convened at Defendant's home and nothing more was said. <p> At 6:00 a.m. on October 23. Other individuals were in the home and asleep. Neither the threats nor the affidavit were introduced into evidence. The court was satisfied that they qualified for admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). After a rule 403 objection was withdrawn. The tapes were admitted without objection. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612854.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background The Evidence at trial was as follows: On the evening of February 10. Who was six months pregnant at the time. Were shopping at a department store located on the Fort Gordon military base in Georgia. Who was holding a gun down by his groin. Who was frightened by the threat and feared that she and her son would be hurt if she did not comply with the man's demands. Was forced to get into the car and was driven by the man to a Wachovia bank. The man had his hand in his pocket and told Young that the gun was in the pocket. Which was the maximum she could withdraw in one day. Young refused because she was afraid that he would kill them. Inside the restaurant there were three military police officers. The assailant was not found. Young testified that she did not believe she was choosing the assailant. She believed she was selecting the individual that most closely resembled the assailant so the police could use characteristics from that photograph to assist in their investigation. 4 Young also assisted the investigators with creating a sketch of the perpetrator. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0388p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is brought by death sentenced Ohio prisoner. (IV) there was a Clemons violation where the trial court upheld Defendant's death sentence after re weighing the aggravating and mitigating FRANK G. (V) that there was prosecutorial misconduct during various stages of the culpability and mitigation phases of the trial. Was granted psychiatric evaluations by four other psychiatrists: Dr. Wherein it was determined. That Defendant was competent to stand trial. Which was accepted by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced to death on August 10. Defendant was also sentenced to terms of seven to twenty five years imprisonment on each attempted murder and aggravated robbery conviction. The court found that Defendant was improperly convicted of two counts of aggravated murder for the death of Timothy Sheehan. The petition was denied. Which was granted. Rickerson was discovered by a fellow student on the floor of a restroom on the Cleveland State University campus. Four spent bullet casings were recovered from the scene. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1526b.html">ALLIED LOCAL AND REGIONAL MANUFACTURERS CAUCUS V. EPA<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were James </p> <p> . With </p> <p>him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were </p> <p>Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. </p> <p>Thomas J. The regulations were issued pursuant to section </p> <p>183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are </p> <p>other industry groups including the National Paint &. </p> <p>that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for </p> <p>review.</p> <p>I</p> <p>The Clean Air Act. One of the </p> <p>pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is </p> <p>ground level ozone. Man made ozone </p> <p>can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the </p> <p>problem of ground level ozone. The </p> <p>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the </p> <p>impact of ground level ozone on human health:</p> <p>Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. </p> <p>increased susceptibility to respiratory infections.</p> <p>Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the </p> <p>effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone </p> <p>concentrations found in many cities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-1526a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0077n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson was convicted of several drug charges. Petitioner appeals on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his felony firearm conviction. That he was entitled to a directed verdict on that charge. BACKGROUND The Michigan Court of Appeals summarized the relevant trial testimony as follows: There was evidence that on December 19. Got in and took a grocery bag that was sitting on the passenger side floor. The home was searched at midnight. The guns the police seized from Petitioner's home were found in various places throughout the house. Two were found in the master bedroom: One was under the mattress of the bed and one was in the closet. Both of those guns were loaded. Several more were found in a locked closet in the second story of the house. While one gun was registered to Petitioner and was in his name. Petitioner was convicted by a state court jury of 1) possession with intent to deliver marijuana. Because Petitioner was a fourth habitual offender. He was sentenced to a two year prison sentence for the felony firearm conviction to be followed by concurrent terms of forty to sixty years for the felon in possession conviction and ten to fifteen years for the drug convictions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0010p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Partee's death was caused by use of excessive force. Finding as to the arresting officers that there had been no showing that Partee had a clearly established right to freedom from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-1526b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were James R. With him on the briefs were Christopher G. With him on the brief were Lois J. Steinzor were on the brief for intervenors. The regulations were issued pursuant to section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. Petitioners are Dunn Edwards Corporation. Intervening on EPA's side are other industry groups including the National Paint & Coat ings Association. We conclude that EPA's regulations are lawful and deny the petitions for review. One of the pollutants so identified and regulated by the agency is ground level ozone. Man made ozone can have a wide array of negative effects on human health. Is aimed at mitigating the problem of ground level ozone. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee explained the impact of ground level ozone on human health: Ozone is fatal at high concentrations. Potentially more troubling and less well understood are the effects of long term chronic exposure to summertime ozone concentrations found in many cities. Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOx) react with volatile organic com pounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4158.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Croxford raises two issues on appeal: (i) whether 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) is facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied. (1) and (ii) (1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Sitting by designation. (1) Croxford also raises on appeal whether 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) is facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied. We will not. While the parties have continued to address the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) in their briefs. Under which he was indicted but not convicted. Is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to Croxford's conduct. Because the statute's application to Croxford's conduct is constitutional. Croxford also confirmed in the interview that he owned a Sony digital camera and was an Internet provider for certain customers. The Sony digital camera that the officers took from Croxford's home were manufactured outside of the state of Utah. Which visual depiction was produced using materials that have been transported in interstate commerce. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1847.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Assistant United States Attorney were on brief. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts. Each man was carrying a firearm on his waistline. Who was carrying money. Was not witnessed. </P> <P> At one point during his surveillance. He and another unidentified individual were carrying a pillowcase that had rifle barrels protruding from it.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0136p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crockett were indicted for multiple crimes by a federal grand jury. A jury trial commenced in which all three defendants were tried together. Crockett was found guilty of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery. Was found not guilty of robbing two other banks with another defendant not involved in this appeal. Nos. 00 3617/3618/3741 All three defendants have appealed this verdict. Arguing that the evidence was not scientifically reliable and. Its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Arguing that the district court committed clear error when it granted the government's peremptory challenge against an African American who could have been seated on the jury panel. Is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Neither Rogers nor Warren are defendants in this case because they both entered into a plea agreement as part of a guilty plea to armed bank robbery. Rogers was dating Starla and he was planning on leaving for Disney World with her the next day. Rogers and Starla I This case is about a series of bank robberies that occurred in Ohio between September 1994 and November 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-2060.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BATES (6/6/2000, NO. 99-2060)<BR></A><BR> Although Bates was unarmed. When the teller informed Bates that she was unable to cash the check. The teller stated that she was fearful that Bates was reaching for a gun. Are you crazy. When Parazine told Bates that his keys were in his house. The government responded that no difference exists between simulating a weapon and simulating the presence of a weapon because each creates the risk that law enforcement will respond with violence. Finding 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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032795p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Remy Augustin was convicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands of carjacking. Will vacate that conviction. The judgment and sentence will otherwise be affirmed.1 I. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whose sole argument on appeal is the insufficiency of the evidence. Were </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/021553P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldman was convicted by a jury of carjacking. Learned that its driver was Waldman. </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/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3107a.html">U.S. V. JOHN Q. WESLEY<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause 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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053704np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first call was placed to Maurice Bell. An associate of Appellant's whom Detective Mailey understood was also Appellant's roommate. Bell was arrested after a large quantity of cocaine base and cocaine powder was found in his vehicle. The cellular telephone number was supplied to Detective Mailey one month earlier by another informant in an unrelated investigation. The CI asked Appellant for cocaine base and was told to come to an apartment to complete the 2 purchase.1 The CI had previously purchased drugs from Appellant at this same apartment. Once Detective Boney was in place. Cubbage was driving a vehicle that police believed to be owned by Appellant. Detective Mailey was surprised Appellant had not left to meet the CI. Bell was the sole. Who was conducting foot patrol surveillance of the area. Detective Mailey believed that the men realized their associates had been arrested and were destroying drug evidence.2 Detective Mailey and Agent Zon then ran inside the building and to the apartment while Detective Matthews joined Detective Boney in covering the front entrance to the apartment building. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1874p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The base offense level is 20. Enhancement of the base offense level is mandated whenever the generic crime of robbery has especially hurtful consequences (e.g. Serious bodily injury or the loss of property of great value) or is carried out in conjunction with any of the other forms of disapproved conduct that the Sentencing Commission has particularized under the heading </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/417F5368059FBBB6882571CC00704B31/$file/0530134.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tommy Hartz was convicted of conspiracy. (3) that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to warrant the jury's verdict. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. There were then no customers in the store and only one employee. Was standing near the front of the store. Both 1 The store was divided into two parts: a showroom in the front. The two parts of the store were separated by a wall. HARTZ men were wearing hats and tee shirts. The hats were pulled down to the robbers' eyebrows. The tee shirts were pulled up to cover their mouths. Marciel would later testify that the robbers' clothing was </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1556.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 21. P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Smith testified that she was considered to be a de facto manager who. Bond nonetheless honored Smith's request and assured her that her position was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-2060.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BATES (6/6/2000, NO. 99-2060)<BR></A><BR> Although Bates was unarmed. When the teller informed Bates that she was unable to cash the check. The teller stated that she was fearful that Bates was reaching for a gun. Are you crazy. When Parazine told Bates that his keys were in his house. The government responded that no difference exists between simulating a weapon and simulating the presence of a weapon because each creates the risk that law enforcement will respond with violence. Finding 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/Aug1995/95a1149p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant William Hayden was convicted of receiving a firearm while under a felony </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/01-3109a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034233np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Brandon Jones was convicted of one count of carjacking. We will affirm his conviction and vacate his sentence. Motioned as if he were holding a gun under his large jacket. He was apprehended an hour later after leading police on a high speed chase. Jones was charged with one count of carjacking and found guilty by a jury on February 14. We have appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 3742. 2 Discussion I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Jones argues the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. Which we will as well. We will uphold the jury verdict where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B70447A4FB222A4882570840079DD1E/$file/0430202.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment and that the district court erred in using a preponderance of the evidence standard when it found that he discharged a firearm. He stated that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-3049a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Steven H. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Tyrone Gloster was sitting on the steps of a residential building. Gloster was immediately arrested. Was subse quently convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1). I Gloster was initially charged with two violations of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(1): one for possessing the firearm and one for possessing its ammunition. The ammunition count was dismissed. De fense counsel then sought to exclude from trial any evidence that the gun was loaded. Arguing that it was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Four men were on the steps. All were standing except Gloster. Who was sitting on the top step. See id. at 98 ( </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1411_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Louis James was convicted of possession of more than fifty grams of crack cocaine (Count I). He was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. When both were living at a local motel. Collier learned from others at the motel that James was selling cocaine. Tiara Woods was in the house with her aunt. Woods asked who was knocking but did not open the door. Inside the shoebox was a pair of size 10 sneakers. On top of the sneakers were a small scale. Inside the glove was a loaded .25 caliber handgun. James' fingerprint was discovered on one of the baggies of cocaine found inside the shoe. Who was manufacturing and distributing crack from the Ash Street house. In which James and Woods were passengers. Or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. The government informed the court that this evidence was seized on February 10. Only a week after the crimes that were charged in the indictment. Drug paraphernalia and cash seized from Ash Street and from the contemporaneous traffic stop were admissible as evidence intricately related to the crime charged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024664.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Kenzie Hylton was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Contending (1) that the firearm was seized pursuant to a warrantless search of his girlfriend's apartment where he was living. (2) that his later statement admitting possession of the firearm was obtained without the benefit of counsel at a time when his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached. Telling the police that Hylton was in her apartment with a gun and that he would not let her in. She also told the officers that a gun was located </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/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3049a.html">USA V. GLOSTER TYRONE W.<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were <i>Steven H. With him on the brief were <i>Wilma A. </i><p> <p> <p> <i>Lewis</i>. Tyrone Gloster was sitting on the steps of a residential <p> building. Gloster was immediately arrested. Was subse <p> quently convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in <p> violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1).<p> <p> Gloster appeals his conviction on two grounds. We <p> affirm Gloster's conviction.<p> <p> <b>I</b> <p> <p> Gloster was initially charged with two violations of 18 <p> U.S.C. 922(g)(1): one for possessing the firearm and one <p> for possessing its ammunition. The ammunition count was dismissed. De <p> fense counsel then sought to exclude from trial any evidence <p> that the gun was loaded. Arguing that it was irrelevant and <p> unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Four men were on the steps. All were <p> standing except Gloster. Who was sitting on the top step. <p> Officer Ernest Grant asked the four to show their hands </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0365n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The facts of the case are quite straightforward. Were adequately set forth by the district court in its opinion and order of July 25. ATF agents have inspected Pro Gun four times to ensure compliance with ATF procedures. ATF notified the Petitioner that his application was on hold during the pendency of assault charges then pending against him in state court in Cuyahoga Falls. Procaccio was later acquitted of those charges. A hearing was held at the ATF Columbus Field Division. As is his right under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3). Petitioner was cited for incomplete Forms 4473 at each inspection. The inspectors found that the Petitioner's log book was incomplete on three occasions. That he was not filling out Forms 3310.4 as required on two occasions. That he was failing to provide required information to purchasers on one occasion. These forms and disclosures are required by ATF regulation. Procaccio can be said to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Travon Gardner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on four counts: (1) conspiracy to possess. Which was to run concurrently with his 240 month sentences on the first two convictions. Gardner's total sentence was 300 months of imprisonment. Which was denied by the district court. Because Gardner's sentence of 300 months will remain the same despite the reversal of one of his convictions. I. BACKGROUND Ricky Collins was arrested for drug violations in the fall of 2003 by Mike Thompson. McMillion responded that he would have to get in touch with his people to see what they wanted and asked Collins for the price for five kilograms. Collins's </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/963094P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is being filed in the interest of avoiding undue delay. 1 McMILLIAN. Moore argues the district judge's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The notice of appeal was timely filed as required by Fed. This case was tried before a magistrate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Jury trial was waived. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the memorandum opinion of the magistrate judge. Moore was intoxicated and loudly asked Lobdell about personal property he claimed had been taken The Honorable David L. Lobdell was slightly behind Moore and to his right. Moore's hands were handcuffed behind his back. He was preparing to take a photograph of Moore as part of the booking process. Was working at a computer in the booking area. Moore was on the floor. Moore told Novak that he was fine and refused medical assistance. Baird testified that Novak was standing beside her when she played back the videotape and that she assumed he watched it at the same time. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3185_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goins claimed that the search was unconstitutional and that the evidence from it should be suppressed. Finding that Bratton had apparent authority to consent to a search of the apartment and that although the officer's opening the gun case was unconstitutional. Officer Jacob Jansky was dispatched to investigate. She told Jansky that Goins had kicked her and she was scared of Goins. Because it was cold outside and he wished to make Bratton more comfortable. Byerson was a veteran drug investigator with the LaCrosse Police Department. He later testified that he might have known who she was. She reported that Goins kept a handgun in a black case that was under the couch. Byerson believed that Goins was a convicted felon based on his knowledge of Goins' criminal history. Bratton's name was not on the property's lease and she did not pay rent. They performed a protective sweep of the residence and determined that no one was home. She claimed that she was in the process of arranging to have her mail delivered to Goins' residence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014927.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By providing that a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) is prohibited from. A MCDV is defined as an offense that is a </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/00-15795.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)<BR></A><BR> We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4015A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for rehearing was granted. Was withdrawn. The present amended opinion is substituted. 2 No. 02 4015 ered the prohibited firearm. The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter 1 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/00-15795.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. TIMMONS (2/26/2002, NO. 00-15795)<BR></A><BR> We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015795.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also vacate the sentence for the underlying drug offenses because it included a weapon enhancement for the possession of the weapons that were part of the same course of conduct for which the defendant has been convicted. Was dismissed prior to trial. Were tried before a jury. He was sentenced to 115 months imprisonment on the drug crimes. He was also sentenced to a consecutive five year term on Count One. Were approached by several males who offered to sell them marijuana and crack cocaine. One of the individuals who was present but did not 4 participate in the sale was Clifford Timmons. That Timmons was not surprised when the undercover officers asked about getting two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3418.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Richard Belisle was charged with possession of two rifles while being prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 922(g). Which was obtained during a warrantless search of his residence. We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Belisle was </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-3081a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. (2) the district court erred by admitting evidence that appellant was the target of the warrant. Residing in the house were Mary Littlejohn. Only Andrew Littlejohn was home. To the right of the stairs are two doors. To the left of the stairs are two more doors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a1009n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted of eight counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The two defendants are Denton's boyfriend. Neely and Amir's cousin Brian Kelly were all living at 1380 Kansas #2. Kelly testified that he had acquired a new apartment and was in the process of moving out of 1380 Kansas #2 around the date of the arrests. Also staying at the apartment when the weapons were discovered were three employees of Amir's escort service. The women were identified only as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-5041.htm">03-5041 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 06/18/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Beecher Community School District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/011177.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is: </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/11circuit//sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1465_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Terrance Thornton was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Thornton was sentenced to 252 months' imprisonment (21 years) under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The convictions and sentence are therefore affirmed. 2 I. Illinois was rocked by gunfire from a drive by shooting. This gas station was within a couple of miles of the shooting. Schultz was able to see the driver of the SUV. Sheehan noticed that the SUV was the only car in the lot. That the only people in the gas station were two customers. The SUV was parked with its engine running and lights on. Sheehan then asked Thornton if he was driving the SUV. Thornton responded by saying that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the state trial court refused to sever his case from his co defendant. Whose confession which also implicated Grossman was introduced at trial. I. Grossman was convicted of first degree murder by a state court jury in Pinellas County. While she was engaged in the lawful performance of her duties. Which was denied by the trial judge 1 in an order subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether Grossman received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.2 The judge who resolved Grossman's post conviction claim for relief was the same judge who presided over the original trial. Are these. Grossman was living in nearby Pasco County and was on probation following a recent prison term. Florida wildlife officer Margaret (Peggy) Park was on patrol in the area and became suspicious when she saw Grossman and Taylor. Grossman pleaded with the officer not to arrest him because possessing a weapon and being outside of Pasco County would have violated the terms of his probation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-5491b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges.* O R D E R Appellants' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is ORDERED by the Court that appellants' petition is de nied. His opinion is attached. These three categories are: (1) </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/11circuit/sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR> Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DED11001AF5063188257106005B4715/$file/0410681.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellant. Was on the brief. Circuit Judge: This case requires us to consider whether the emergency doctrine or implied consent can support a warrantless search of a home on suspicion that a 9 1 1 caller or lurking predator was inside. That he was wounded and in pain. The transcript of the first call shows that the Fire Dispatcher and the SSO Dispatcher were confused as to whether the caller had been shot. After Russell's call was disconnected. Russell explained that he was </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-3084a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. We affirm all of the convictions except Gilliam's s 922(g) firearms conviction. 1 Gross also contends that he was severely prejudiced by the district court's refusal to make an in limine ruling as to whether the government could cross examine his wife about an alleged inappro priate contact with a juror. Gilliam and Gross were indicted for armed bank robbery. 22 3901 and 22 105 (1981).2 They were found guilty by the district court of the felon in possession count and by the jury on all other counts.3 A third defendant. Was acquitted on all counts. Code ss 22 3204(b) and 105. 3 The defendants elected a bench trial on the s 922(g) charges. was opening the bank's parking lot gate so that he could park his car. Which was nearby with the driver's door open and the engine running. One man pressed something hard into Brewer's back that Brewer thought was a gun. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1112.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bail was set at $10. The district court was informed that. Defendant had been deprived of his right under 18 U.S.C. 3145(b) to prompt review of a detention order and 2 2 consequently was entitled to release. He was arrested. Defendant's second arrest was described in a detailed report of the arresting officer. Driscoll noticed that the passenger was sweating heavily and moving his legs against the seat. Defendant said he had spilled tonic and was wiping it up. Felt the floor and ascertained it was dry. While the operator was being handcuffed. Both defendant and the driver were subsequently charged with possession of a dangerous weapon (handgun) without a license. The weapon offense is a felony under state law. 1 (crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison is a felony). Reiterated much of what was in the reports. His information was not based on personal knowledge. One was not traced. Two 4 4 others were owned by George Caruso. A club of which defendant was an associate. The sheath of the knife was taped to the steering wheel. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Defendant was a regular customer. A form necessary to verify the purchaser's identity and determine if the purchaser is legally allowed to possess a firearm. Sanchez informed Defendant his application was denied. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041459P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mathias Pizano and Jessica Pizano are brother and sister. Celia Pizano is their mother. Jessica and Celia were convicted on all counts of a twenty count indictment. Jessica and Celia were convicted of the following: Mathias 2 was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (cocaine and marijuana) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846. Jessica was convicted of three counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Counts 8. Celia was convicted of five counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 2. Related facts will be grouped accordingly. A. In General Jessica is the mother of five children. Mathias's reported income in 1991 and 1992 was $2. The restaurant was in operation from early 2000 until 4 the end of 2001. It was not profitable. Jessica and Celia were living in Moline. Which was jointly owned by Mathias. Mathias was hosting a party for a drug dealer who had been sentenced and would be leaving for prison. Were present at the party. The police told Jessica that drugs were found at Mathias's house and that they were looking for him. </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/may97/96-6173.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR<BR></A><BR> (2) his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was not supported by sufficient evidence. Taylor was arrested for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Is denied. Counsel is requested to serve in a stand by advisory capacity only. The defendant is directed to declare his intentions in this regard by written statement filed with the clerk of court within ten (10) days to that effect. I want to make sure that this trial is fair to you and fair to your co defendant as well as to the government. The cocaine was </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/945236.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Deros </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0150n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Larone Cook is a former police officer of the fifth precinct of the Detroit Police Department. Cook and his co defendants Irvin Lamont Upshaw and Rodney Rice were convicted by a jury under a multicount indictment for various offenses. The convictions were based on the officers' abuse of their law enforcement positions for personal gain and violations of the rights of others. While there are slight differences between Cook's appeal and the appeals of Upshaw and Rice. We will dispose of Cook's appeal at least as it relates to his convictions in a very similar fashion. Cook's involvement in various criminal incidents are set out in this court's Upshaw opinion. We will both replicate the general factual background from Upshaw and also highlight those facts specifically relating to Cook's involvement. Sometimes marijuana sales were made in the back of the store as well. The enclosed area behind the counter was accessible only through a door that Darwich kept locked. As long as I was down with him. </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/10circuit/july97/96-1102.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HOLLAND<BR></A><BR> Kenneth Wayne Holland was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1).(1) His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Asserting that his section 924(c)(1) conviction is invalid under Bailey v. Which was decided after we affirmed of his conviction. Holland's convictions are set out in detail in our opinion on direct appeal. Holland and co defendant Sevelt Kelly was pulled over on a routine traffic stop. Who was driving. Holland was also convicted of two separate counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). These convictions are not challenged here and are not relevant to our consideration of the issues raised by Mr. Three ounces of cocaine in a cosmetic bag were found by the side of the road where the traffic stop occurred. Holland was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). He now contends that his section 924(c)(1) conviction is invalid under the Supreme Court's construction of that statute in Bailey. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0274p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515067.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The robbery was recorded on the post office's video recorder.1 On August 31. Dowd's counsel conceded that Dowd is clearly identifiable in the 2 video. found the remaining stolen money orders in Dowd's car. The gun used in the robbery was never recovered. Dowd was arrested in Florida. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Dennison and Keith Allen were parked in an Englewood. Dennison was in the driver's seat of his gold Ford truck with a </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2149.htm">98-2149 -- U.S. V. YAZZIE -- 08/10/1999<BR></A><BR> We have consolidated the appeals for the purpose of this disposition. Because there was evidence permitting a jury to reasonably conclude the victim was killed by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The following Parts I thru III C are entered for the court by Judge Holloway. Part III D is being entered by Judge Hartz for the majority of this panel as the judgment of the court. Were jointly indicted and convicted at trial of charges related to trafficking in methamphetamine in the District of New Mexico. Each now brings a direct (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We will address both appeals together. Defendant Appellant Steve Madrid was charged in a superseding indictment on six counts and convicted at jury trial on all six. Count I was a charge against Steve Madrid and Jose Madrid of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & 846. V were discrete charges against Steve Madrid of distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant Appellant Jose Madrid was charged only in Count I and. Was convicted on that charge. Steve Madrid was sentenced to 235 months on the conspiracy and trafficking counts and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/017758.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny in a Virginia court. Because Teal's notice of appeal was untimely. The three appeals have been consolidated. The prosecution's case was based on both direct and circumstantial evidence. He found that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/014484p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His major complaint is that the government improperly joined and tried separate and unrelated crimes and conspiracies he allegedly committed with several individuals over the course of many years. We will affirm the convictions for the reasons set forth below. The trial evidence showed that Irizarry was a central member of a criminal group that operated out of Jersey City. Irizarry's principal job was carrying out the group's criminal activities. Franco Durso was Irizarry's boss. These five individuals formed the core membership of Irizarry's crew although others were associated with it from time to time. Ranieri was next in line to take control of a group that was the Sicilian wing of the notorious Gambino crime family. Ranieri was based in Brooklyn. McGuiness testified that a </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1619VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Twenty two defendants were indicted on charges of conspiracy with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Were also charged with violating the Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) statute. Quez was the triggerman and principal supplier. The remaining nine appellants were charged with playing various roles in distributing drugs or protecting the distribution of drugs.</P> <P> The original twenty two defendants were separated into two groups. Comprised of those who the government said were more major players in the conspiracy. Were tried before a jury from December 28. The jury convicted all eleven defendants on all counts with which they were charged.</P> <P> The two CCE defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment on Count One. Was dismissed as to them under the rule of <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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3953_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jeffrey Stevens was a passenger in a vehicle when the driver was lawfully stopped by Terre Haute. A pistol was subsequently found directly underneath Stevens's seat. Stevens was ultimately convicted of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Arguing there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. As was his habit. Stevens was looking for transportation. As his own truck was destroyed by fire the day before in front of Gary's house. The plan was to pick up Gary and his two shotguns and pawn the shotguns. Gary testified Downing was playfully waving around a pistol while inside the house. The shotgun in front was placed with the barrel between Stevens's feet and the pistol grip leaning towards Stevens. When Stevens later asked where Gary was. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0569n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The occupants of a maroon car containing several members of a gang called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-3118a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051684np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeal their convictions and sentences entered in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after they were found guilty of conspiracy to sell crack cocaine in Reading. Keyes based his appeal on the argument that the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was part of a single conspiracy to distribute drugs. The evidence showed there were distinct and multiple conspiracies at work. Peña has argued that the evidence at trial showed he was a competitor. He also asserts that the sentencing court should not have permitted the Government to call new witnesses at his sentencing in order to enhance his guideline calculation with facts that had not been proven to a jury. Peña was sentenced to 260 months of incarceration. Goodrich argues that such evidence was hearsay. Law enforcement officers regarding cell phone records because no custodian of the records or other qualified witness authenticated the records or explained how they were compiled and kept. CastilloBienvenido also contends that he was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of testimony that he held a loaded gun to a man's back on a public street and wrestled with the man for control of the gun. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1555.htm">02-1555 -- U.S. V. APTT -- 01/21/2004<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="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-6187.htm">01-6187 -- U.S. V. EASTERLING -- 04/17/2002<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Easterling was wanted on an outstanding warrant for a supervised release violation. A sign posted at the garage stated it was open 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. As the officers were parked outside. He was arrested in the parking lot at approximately 5:40 p.m. as he left the garage. Several officers went into the garage through the unlocked exterior door to determine if anyone else was present. The gun was identified by serial number and determined to be a .380 caliber Taurus that belonged to Easterling's ex wife. Easterling was indicted for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> <center><u>Suppression of evidence</u></center> <p> Easterling contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the gun. The first is subjective. The second is objective. That expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315094.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts pertaining to the chase that covered approximately nine miles and lasted approximately six minutes are as follows. The vehicle that Harris was driving was registered in Harris' name and at his proper address. The deputy radioed dispatch and reported that he was pursuing a fleeing vehicle. He did not relay that the underlying charge was speeding. Where two Peachtree City police vehicles were already stationed. A </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1298.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lenehan & Iacopino were on brief for appellant William F. Robert Sheketoff with whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief for appellant Charles Flynn. Was on brief for appellee. Gary Neal were found guilty by a jury on a number of criminal charges stemming from a series of armed robberies that took place in New Hampshire. We find that the record indicates the district judge may have applied an erroneous legal standard in ruling that various materials did not qualify as statements under the Jencks Act. We will remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether statements demanded by Appellant Flynn should have been disclosed under the Jencks Act and. We also remand to the district court on the issue of the order of restitution entered against Appellant Neal with instructions that a hearing be held to determine whether the full amount of monetary losses suffered by First New Hampshire Bank was caused by the conduct underlying Neal's convictions. We will retain appellate jurisdiction so that we may review the court's augmented record and subsequent determinations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2000.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Quincy Vanhook was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams and more of crack cocaine. (1) three counts of possession with intent to distribute less than five grams (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. We will remain consistent with theindictment. <hr> of crack cocaine and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Sligh's nickname was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7002.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Burton was convicted of using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. <hr> was introduced at trial. As she was driving her son to the bank. Burton was wearing a black shirt with a backwards number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7130.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Introduction Melvin Holly was convicted by a jury on fourteen criminal counts. It further explained the jury could alternatively find the requisite fear element if there was a fear of some bodily harm. The conviction on Count V is affirmed upon harmless error review. Was indicted in a fifteen count superseding indictment that charged eight counts of misdemeanor deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. Holly was convicted on all counts except one count of misdemeanor deprivation of rights under color of law. There was testimony presented at trial that Holly had nonconsensual sex with four inmates at the Latimer County Jail and attempted to have sex with another whose resistance ultimately deterred him. She explained she did not run away because she was scared he would shoot her. Vicki Fowler testified that Holly forced her to have sex with him in his office after allowing her to make a personal phone call. Amber Helmert related a situation in which Holly attempted to have sex with her in his office after calling her to the office using the pretext of a family emergency. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-3376.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HARDWELL<BR></A><BR> Royal Hopkins were charged with conspiring to possess two kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute in August 1993. 21 U.S.C. 846. Dennis was also charged in a separate indictment with possession of 7.9 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute in May 1992. The two cases were tried together at his request. There were two trials. Royal was acquitted in the first trial. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on Calvin and Myron. Found the remaining (1) As several defendants have the same last name. He became a suspect in larger scale illegal drug trafficking when police in Texas found two and one half kilograms of cocaine in the van he was driving. The cash was seized after a dog trained to detect illegal drugs by scent alerted them to it. 919 was found in a bag that had been checked with Dennis Hardwell's name tag. Was seized as abandoned after he denied ownership of the bag. The operation failed when Dennis learned his telephone conversations with an informant about delivery of the cocaine were being recorded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Klibaner & Sabino was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. I Background This is Doe's second sentencing appeal. We 2 2 held that this particular felony the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: Page 2. Replace it with the following footnote: 9 Although a rape of any type surely is a sufficiently serious physical invasion to justify a sentencing enhancement. Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Defendant Reynaldo Vazquez Rivera was convicted of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119. By increasing his sentence based on a finding that the rape constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034256p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She discovered that the hospital was committing infanticide in an attempt to comply with China's population control policy. After her letter to a Hong Kong news reporter exposing this practice was intercepted by the Chinese government. She says that she was detained for three months. Cao's allegations that she was persecuted for exposing and criticizing the practice of infanticide. After declaring that Cao's demeanor as a witness was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061024np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Defendant Dewey Powell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992940P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gerald Carroll was convicted by a jury of armed robbery of a federally insured credit union and a related firearms charge. Was sentenced by the District Court to life in prison plus twenty years. Carroll argues that evidence of a prior conviction was improperly admitted. That certain post arrest statements were wrongly introduced into evidence. That the law requiring his lengthy sentence is unconstitutional. The latter two contentions are meritless. Sitting by designation. 1 Carroll's prior conviction was erroneously admitted. That error was harmless. He pleaded guilty in 1989 and was sentenced to a substantial prison term. Such evidence is admissible </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0367p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A certificate of appealability was granted on six claims. Are raised on appeal. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed AbdusSamad's convictions and sentences on direct appeal and recited the following facts: Defendant was convicted of the felony murder of William Price and of the armed robberies of Price and his companion. They were directed by an individual they met along the way to Raiford's Lounge on Mulberry and Vance Streets. At this time apparently all the doors of the van were open. Price was sitting in the driver's seat. Lee was standing outside the van on the passenger's side and Tate was standing outside on the driver's side. The lights were on in the parking lot. The van's dome and side door lights were also on. While the women were arguing. Barbara Lee was either pushed out of the way by defendant or ran away from the van. The defendant told Wright to leave because he had some trouble and said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4222.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walker increased security and began conducting regular checks of the units to ensure that unrented units were empty and that rented units were locked. 1. Walker noticed that the lock on the J 11 unit was missing. He suspected a burglary was in progress. They found that the lock was missing and that the remaining contents were in disarray. While the officers were still at The Storage Center. He stated that he was smoking crack cocaine at Joe 3 Wingate's house on May 17. Someone suggested 1 These items were the bases for the first six counts of the indictment against Mr. Hopkins had a driver's license and was asked to drive the truck. They loaded duffel bags and other items in the truck until it was full. He conducted a preliminary test and determined that the firearms recovered from the U Haul were fully automatic machineguns. Who was familiar with World War II machineguns. Hopkins stated the lock may have been missing or open on unit J ll. The storage unit may have contained AR 15s that had been converted into M16 machineguns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kentucky was allowed to move its vehicle inspection and maintenance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-7074.htm">02-7074 -- U.S. V. RUCKMAN -- 02/05/2003<BR></A><BR> Another under the bed. <p> Defendant was indicted on three counts of being a felon in possession of firearms. The court also enhanced his sentence based upon the conclusion that his second degree burglary conviction was a </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-2297.htm">96-2297 -- RADECKI V. BARELA -- 06/24/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-3107a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Wesley was arrested for violating the terms of his pretrial release and then convicted for unlawfully possessing a gun and drugs at the time of his arrest. He challenges his convictions on the ground that the evidence the government used against him at trial was ob tained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While the only convictions at issue here are those that resulted from the last of the three arrests. Wesley was again found near the Stanton Trenton intersection. Officer Andre Martin who was unaware of Wesley's June arrest discover ed Wesley on Trenton Place about thirty feet from Stanton Road. Wesley was arrested. Officer Martin did know that Wesley was once again frequenting the intersection. That he thought Wesley was likely to be in the area. Martin's suspicions were well founded: Wesley was sitting in his car on Stanton Road. With him was his cousin. The phrase </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//july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-3158a.html">USA V. MOORE OPIO<BR></A><BR> </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0003p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal involves three individuals who were part of a conspiracy to distribute drugs in Columbus. Larry Latham and Benjamin Owusu were the primary participants in the conspiracy. Anthony Latham was involved in the chain of distribution. Anthony and Larry Latham were convicted of several federal drug violations.1 Anthony appeals: (1) the district court's refusal to grant him a mitigating role adjustment to his offense level under U.S. We DISMISS the appeal of this determination because the district court was aware of its authority to grant such a departure and thus its decision is nonreviewable. They were both arrested on September 5. By a New Jersey state trooper who discovered two kilograms of cocaine and two guns in the car in which they were traveling. Owusu and Larry were convicted of drug and weapons charges in New Jersey state court. Owusu and Larry were able to begin purchasing from Owusu's connection and distributing again in 1989. Anthony also was involved in the conspiracy. Anthony Peoples was Larry's right hand man in distributing drugs. </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/july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0782n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Appellant Charles Kelly Wynn ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1962a.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tierney with whom Tierney Law Office was on brief for appellant. Walsh with whom Kroll & Tract was on brief for appellees Charles B. P.C. was on brief for appellees Jeffrey Mennino. A passenger injured after police officers had chased the motorcycle on which she was riding sued the police officers. The following facts are not in dispute. Was traveling in his police cruiser north on County Road in Lakeville. Which he was operating as he drove along County Road. The posted speed limit on County Road was 40 miles per hour. Was attached as an exhibit to Meninno's deposition. 2 began to pursue the motorcycle. Realized that the police car was following them. Backing off a number of times when it appeared that the bike was wobbling and the riders might fall off. Telling her of the pursuit and asking her to notify the police department in the neighboring town of Freetown that the motorcycle was heading toward the Lakeville Freetown line. Were parked in separate cruisers on Route 18 in Freetown. Before turning left from County Road onto Mason Road and accelerating again to over sixty miles per hour.2 Officer Meninno kept up and told Sullivan by radio that he and the motorcycle were now proceeding eastbound on Mason Road. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/022898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pelayo Jose Cuervo were convicted of numerous narcotics and firearms offenses. The firearms convictions that were unrelated to the conspiracy. Five kilograms or more of cocaine.3 The defendants were also charged with using firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defendants were convicted of many of the charged counts.7 Norman was convicted of maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of nine substantive counts of distributing methamphetamine. Cuervo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. Schoenauer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute between fifty and five hundred grams of methamphetamine and between one hundred grams and one thousand kilograms of marijuana. Schoenauer was then tried separately and found guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 3 4 5 6 7 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4317.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thomas Ray Gurule was indicted and found guilty after a jury trial for violation of the federal carjacking statute. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (specifying mandatory life imprisonment if defendant is convicted of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964126.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officers were summoned to the home of Genavy Jackson. Jackson asked the officers 2 if he could get his gun for protection while he was </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/1999/04/97-2301.htm">97-2301 -- U.S. V. WISEMAN -- 04/05/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> This is a direct appeal from convictions and a sentence in a criminal case. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. </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/11circuit//apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR> PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<A HREF= </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/11circuit/apr2000/98-9085.man.html">HIGH V. HEAD (4/19/2000, NO. 98-9085)<BR></A><BR> PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case were briefly summarized in a previous opinion of this Court as follows:</P> <P> Jose High and his accomplices. Phillips was placed in the trunk of the car and Bullock in the back seat. High and his accomplices drove their captives to a remote site where they were to be eliminated. The 11 year old boy was taunted with threats of death as they rode in the back seat of the car. The victims were forced to lie face down in front of the car and were then shot. 1508 (11th Cir.1990) (footnote omitted).<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98017B33493E39CE882571FD00810C8D/$file/0430397.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm because consent to search was not voluntary. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We conclude that the search was conducted pursuant to a valid consent. There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Rodriquez possessed the firearm. Was placed on a term of community supervision. He was subsequently placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-2799.man.html">WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyke v. These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026548.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His longtime girlfriend Beverly Monroe was convicted of his murder. Statements suggesting that Burde may have been suicidal. Challenging the court's conclusion that she procedurally defaulted certain aspects of her Brady claim.2 Because the Brady evidence3 on which the court relied is sufficient to warrant its award of habeas corpus relief. The district court decided that this adjudication was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CD46E54F0E66A1188256D6C0059EB7C/$file/0110538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The transfer proceeding was proper. We will also address two of the other claims Miguel and Jose raise because these claims may arise on retrial. Nor involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense to felony murder. Miguel and Jose were carousing with several friends. The Latchum family was vacationing at the WARC. Miguel was the last one to speak to the police. He said that the rifle went off when he was trying to take it away from Calarruda to prevent Calarruda from shooting at Latchum. He said that he did not pull the trigger and that it might have been Calarruda's finger on the trigger when the rifle fired. He said that his finger was on the trigger. He also said that he fired the gun accidentally when he was trying to fire it into the air. B. The Transfer Proceeding Miguel was seventeen years old at the time of the shooting. The shooting was accidental and the youth's intoxication mitigated the offense. The factors are: (1) Miguel's age and social background. Stating that Miguel accidentally fired the gun while he was trying to aim it into the air. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI4Nzhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2878_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a conviction for possession of a weapon on the ground that the testimony of a key defense witness who testified at a first trial was excluded at a second trial. The exclusion of the defense witness's prior testimony was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-2799.man.html">WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyke v. These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/963555P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This was the first time the gun had been fired. The cartridge exploded while the chamber was open. Was temporarily blinded. Chronister was not wearing any sort of hearing protection at the time. Chronister was later examined by an ear nose throat physician. That his hearing is still within a normal range. Which is a painful hypersensitivy to noise. Both of these conditions are probably permanent. Alleging that the Bryco 59 was defectively designed and that Bryco failed to warn of the risk that the gun might misfire with the chamber open. Chronister argued that the Bryco 59 was defective because. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Radvansky was arrested by Telegdy and Saxer after breaking into a house. In which he was renting a room. Despite the officers' pre existing knowledge that he was currently involved in a dispute with his landlord. Radvansky was placed under arrest for burglary. Finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Because it concluded there was no constitutional violation. Both in determining that there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky and that Telegdy and Saxer were entitled to qualified immunity. The decision below is REVERSED with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against Telegdy and Saxer but AFFIRMED in all other respects on other grounds. Pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties. Informing 1 Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance. </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=04-1518.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hayes' sentence was enhanced for possession of a firearm a handgun Hayes admitted he purchased in the midst of his crime spree and kept in the glove compartment of the car he owned and which he used to flee the final robbery. Hayes argued that his sentence was invalid under <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://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991869P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Shields' allegations warranted a jury trial.2 The following facts were adduced. Shields testified he was working in the prison kitchen on March 12. Where he was met by Jones. The proper inquiry is </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1210_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Birk argues that he was denied a fair trial and due process of law when the government's witness testified that Birk had a </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975998.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The two men were convicted of robbing a Fuddruckers restaurant in Dade County. Which was parked outside the restaurant. Kimble and Blount then used the car to escape and were apprehended following a chase. Both men were convicted at trial. Kimble was sentenced to 421 months and Blount to 408 months. Kimble and Blount argue that their convictions should be reversed because the district court erred by not suppressing as unduly suggestive and unreliable the police showup at which they were identified and that the district court's jury instruction on the Hobbs Act charge improperly removed the Act's interstate commerce component from the jury's consideration. Blount went to the restaurant's back office where supervisor Robert Wilcher was talking on the phone. Who was standing guard over the other employees. Model and that it was parked alongside the building. Kimble and Blount were identified by three Fuddruckers employees. A loaded nine millimeter pistol was found near the car. A redacted version of this tape recorded confession omitting all reference to Kimble was played at trial. 3 At trial. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975998.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The two men were convicted of robbing a Fuddruckers restaurant in Dade County. Which was parked outside the restaurant. Kimble and Blount then used the car to escape and were apprehended following a chase. Both men were convicted at trial. Kimble was sentenced to 421 months and Blount to 408 months. Kimble and Blount argue that their convictions should be reversed because the district court erred by not suppressing as unduly suggestive and unreliable the police show up at which they were identified and that the district court's jury instruction on the Hobbs Act charge improperly removed the Act's Honorable Richard D. Blount went to the restaurant's back office where supervisor Robert Wilcher was talking on the phone. Who was standing guard over the other employees. Model and that it was parked alongside the building. Kimble and Blount were identified by three Fuddruckers employees. A loaded nine millimeter pistol was found near the car. A redacted version of this tape recorded confession omitting all reference to Kimble was played at trial. </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI4MDVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2805_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Jackson was convicted in New York Supreme Court. The District Court granted habeas relief on both offenses based on two separate claims: (1) Jackson was deprived of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by the trial court's refusal to allow the jury to consider a justification defense. (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when trial counsel cited inapposite case law to the court. 1997 2 Jackson was the superintendent of an apartment building at 110 Grove Street in Brooklyn. A group of family members and friends was drinking and playing cards in apartment 1B. Who was joined that evening by her sister in law. Who was Bernadette's brother and Mirna's husband. That Natalie Hall and her friends were inside apartment 2E. Drummond was a friend of Jackson's who lived in the building. There is some dispute over precisely what happened next. He later testified that he The medical examiner later determined that Brown's blood alcohol content was 0.21%. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep20/01-60490.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Federal Bureau of Investigation. contend that their convictions are the result of a corrupt Tunica Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Butler was given marked money and wore a Lieutenant Hudson testified that Bowens' voice is heard on the audiotape telling Butler that his police source said Butler was 2 not a good customer. you. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0112A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5998.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. KIMBLE (6/22/1999, NO. 97-5998)<BR></A><BR> The two men were convicted of robbing a Fuddruckers restaurant in Dade County. Which was parked outside the restaurant. Kimble and Blount then used the car to escape and were apprehended following a chase. Both men were convicted at trial. Kimble was sentenced to 421 months and Blount to 408 months.</P> <P> On appeal. Kimble and Blount argue that their convictions should be reversed because the district court erred by not suppressing as unduly suggestive and unreliable the police show up at which they were identified and that the district court's jury instruction on the Hobbs Act charge improperly removed the Act's interstate commerce component from the jury's consideration. Blount went to the restaurant's back office where supervisor Robert Wilcher was talking on the phone. Who was standing guard over the other employees. Model and that it was parked alongside the building. Kimble and Blount were identified by three Fuddruckers employees. A loaded nine millimeter pistol was found near the car. A redacted version of this tape recorded confession omitting all reference to Kimble was played at trial. </P> <P> At trial. </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/315E1DE83BC0D4258825719D005C71F8/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stewart believed the kits were legal to sell because the receivers on the rifles had not yet been completely machined and the rifles were thus not usable as firearms. Stewart was charged and convicted of one count of felony possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). No charges were brought against Stewart regarding the advertised parts kits that were initially the subject of the investigation. Claiming that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is an invalid exercise of Congress's commerce power and violates the Second Amendment. Section 922(o) was an invalid exerStewart also claims the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress. Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he makes a </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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032866np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Christopher Rasheed Smith was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced by the District Court to 236 months' imprisonment. Smith contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the 2 giving of a </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5998.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. KIMBLE (6/22/1999, NO. 97-5998)<BR></A><BR> The two men were convicted of robbing a Fuddruckers restaurant in Dade County. Which was parked outside the restaurant. Kimble and Blount then used the car to escape and were apprehended following a chase. Both men were convicted at trial. Kimble was sentenced to 421 months and Blount to 408 months.</P> <P> On appeal. Kimble and Blount argue that their convictions should be reversed because the district court erred by not suppressing as unduly suggestive and unreliable the police show up at which they were identified and that the district court's jury instruction on the Hobbs Act charge improperly removed the Act's interstate commerce component from the jury's consideration. Blount went to the restaurant's back office where supervisor Robert Wilcher was talking on the phone. Who was standing guard over the other employees. Model and that it was parked alongside the building. Kimble and Blount were identified by three Fuddruckers employees. A loaded nine millimeter pistol was found near the car. A redacted version of this tape recorded confession omitting all reference to Kimble was played at trial. </P> <P> At trial. </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTExNDhfc28ucGRm/03-1148_so.pdf">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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-3039.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> Hicks was driving a 1991 Ford Aerostar east on U.S. Hicks was going 66 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. While Trooper Kennedy was pulling the van over. Was unable to produce either. Hicks in the back seat of the patrol car and again asked him where his registration and insurance documents were. Hicks appeared nervous while he was in the patrol car. Hicks where he was going. Hicks said he was traveling from Oxnard. Hicks was in the patrol car. The license plates were current. The VIN was also on the dashboard. It was not visible through the windshield because there was a magazine covering it. Who was still in the passenger seat. Hicks were going. Miller told Trooper Kennedy he was traveling from Ventura. Which is near Oxnard. While he was still leaning into the van and talking to Mr. Trooper Kennedy did not have to move anything in order to see the pipe. Hicks if it was his pipe. Hicks admitted it was. It is unclear whether he did so before or after he arrested Mr. Trooper Kennedy learned from the dispatcher that the van was stolen. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/053703P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\9-8\05-3703 USA V. FRANCIS OPN.8.28.WPD<BR></A><BR> Francis is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and has developed a reputation as a world renowned firearms expert. Francis was charged with conspiring with the Trimbells to distribute firearms without a license in violation of federal law. Francis pleaded guilty to one count and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and four years' probation and fined $3. The Probation Office reminded Francis that he was prohibited from acting as a gun dealer and that he was not to handle or possess firearms. Francis and his wife were concerned about the legality of their arrangement and were advised by Francis's probation officer to contact the Bureau of Alcohol. That is. Which is a high end firearms store owned by his wife. Adjacent to the WRA is a pawn shop that is also owned by Mrs. Which is why almost all business was conducted by phone. Who was to sell it on behalf of WRA. Francis and the informant were videotaped entering WRA's firearms vault. Westerman is Francis's step son. Westerman is an officer and employee of both the WRA and the pawn shop. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was registered to Evans's girlfriend. Noticed screws missing underneath where a radio or CD player ordinarily is in the front center console. Finding it uncharacteristic to have missing screws in that area of the vehicle. Constructive possession requires that the defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/97-6849.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SAWYER (7/14/1999, NO. 97-6849)<BR></A><BR> We find we must do so again.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Sawyer is an admitted bank robber. By this time Sawyer had moved and was standing on top of the counter in front of Malone's teller window. Jumped in his marked police car and advised the police radio operator that he was in pursuit of a bank robbery suspect. This time Sawyer complied and was arrested.</P> <P><CENTER>II.</CENTER> </P> <P> Sawyer pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). Sawyer was again re sentenced to 157 months' imprisonment plus five years supervised release.</P> <P><CENTER>III.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> This is. The crime and the criminal's characteristics are consulted. The weight to be given various considerations are programmed. He then began walking down College Road where he was spotted by off duty police officer Sudduth. As that section did not apply unless the defendant was actually fleeing from a law enforcement officer. <EM>Id.</EM> Upon remand at re sentencing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-8001.htm">99-8001 -- U.S. V. HUMPHREY -- 04/04/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/97-6849.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SAWYER (7/14/1999, NO. 97-6849)<BR></A><BR> We find we must do so again.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Sawyer is an admitted bank robber. By this time Sawyer had moved and was standing on top of the counter in front of Malone's teller window. Jumped in his marked police car and advised the police radio operator that he was in pursuit of a bank robbery suspect. This time Sawyer complied and was arrested.</P> <P><CENTER>II.</CENTER> </P> <P> Sawyer pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d). Sawyer was again re sentenced to 157 months' imprisonment plus five years supervised release.</P> <P><CENTER>III.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> This is. The crime and the criminal's characteristics are consulted. The weight to be given various considerations are programmed. He then began walking down College Road where he was spotted by off duty police officer Sudduth. As that section did not apply unless the defendant was actually fleeing from a law enforcement officer. <EM>Id.</EM> Upon remand at re sentencing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the government presented sufficient evidence to allow <hr> the jury to conclude that Norman constructively possessed the firearm found in the glove compartment of his car. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Which was occupied by Marcell Jeron Norman. Norman's actions were sufficiently odd that she drew her weapon and told Norman to get back into the car and turn off the engine. Officer Fees noticed that the glove compartment was locked. Norman stated that he did not have a key to the glove compartment. (Id. at 24Ä25) (1) The glove compartment was apparently easily opened without a key. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2212.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glennon Professional Association was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. Appellant Phillip Wight was convicted of four counts of a multi count indictment charging both controlled substances and firearms violations.1 On appeal. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his firearms convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) (possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime) and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm). Finding that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. Are not in dispute. Codefendant Edward Dunbar was approached by an undercover police officer who sought to buy a large quantity of marijuana. Wight was seated in the front passenger seat. Fields were arrested. The vehicle was taken to the Manchester police station. Where an inventory search was conducted. The weapon was located underneath some newspapers behind the two front seats of the van. The pistol was in a partially unzipped case with the opening facing the passenger seat of the van where appellant Wight sat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413114.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal by the government is from a judgment of acquittal entered in favor of Eliany Molina after a jury convicted her of knowingly participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Because Molina was arrested in her bedroom. A reasonable jury could have found that Molina knowingly participated in the drug trafficking conspiracy. Because a firearm was found in the drawer of a nightstand that also contained the passports of both Molina and her brother. A reasonable jury also could have found that Molina possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Molina is the sister in law of Garza. Agents shouted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042849p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32CCF25A2206AC09882571C6007C5546/$file/0455026.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the liability of the United States was derivative of the liability of the individual defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-7143.htm">99-7143 -- SMITH V. MASSEY -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the underlying facts. Allegedly had made threats to have him killed. <p> As the group drove away from the motel. Present at the house were Smith and his wife Robyn. Five of these gunshot wounds were fatal. The knife wound was also potentially fatal. <p> <u>Smith v. 483 U.S. 1033 (1987). <p> Smith and her son Greg were charged in the District Court of Sequoyah County. The cases against Smith and her son were severed for purposes of trial. The jury found the existence of two aggravating factors: (1) the murder was especially heinous. Smith was formally sentenced by the state district court on December 29. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial of post conviction relief was affirmed by the OCCA. <u>Smith v. The magistrate court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Smith was advised by trial counsel of a potential conflict of interest arising out of counsel's representation of both Smith and her son and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50546.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1981.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. 1994 Fortes (1) was a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)). Prior to trial the fourth count was dropped. Fortes was tried to the bench on counts 1. After a week's trial Fortes was found guilty on all three counts. Fortes was sentenced in July of 1996. Finding that under count 1 felon in possession of firearms and ammunition Fortes was subject to enhanced penalties pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Fortes argues that findings made by the district court in connection with the conviction under count 3 possession of cocaine with intent to distribute are incompatible with a verdict of guilty. Fortes' precise contention is that certain of the district court's findings are directly at odds with a conclusion that. He </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5016a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief were Greg Abbott. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Robert J. Mogilnicki were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Code § 7 2502.01 prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in the District of Columbia unless it is validly registered. It is no t possible in the District to purchase and lawfully possess a new pistol or indeed any pistol not registered here three decades ago. Subject to exceptions for firearms kept at places of business or firearms that are being lawfully used for recreationa l purposes in the District. Plaintiff Jordan is the only plaintiff who owns a pistol. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions are unlawful. To meet the </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/july97/95-8397.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms received information that Donald Wright was looking for someone to reassemble a .50 caliber machinegun. Two undercover local law enforcement agents were introduced to Wright as individuals capable of reassembling this gun. Once it was reassembled. Assorted documents and videotapes describing threats to United States sovereignty posed by the </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//july97/95-8397.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms received information that Donald Wright was looking for someone to reassemble a .50 caliber machinegun. Two undercover local law enforcement agents were introduced to Wright as individuals capable of reassembling this gun. Once it was reassembled. Assorted documents and videotapes describing threats to United States sovereignty posed by the </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/200311264.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> So where there are conflicting reports of facts in the pleadings. Was on routine patrol when he noticed a red pick up truck with a burned out taillight. Eric William Irby was driving the truck. Hutchinson was in the passenger seat. Cleveland began to follow the truck and noticed that the truck was weaving between lanes and having trouble negotiating curves in the roadway. Cleveland suspected the driver was under the influence. Cleveland signaled the truck to pull over and radioed the dispatcher to say he was making a traffic stop. Carr are not parties to this appeal. 3 over the road to prevent the officers from passing. Officer Phillips joined the chase as the vehicles were approaching him. It was locked. Irby was still attempting to get his truck out of the ditch. The back tires were in a rut in the bottom of the ditch. Carr was able to grab Irby and to pull him out of the truck. Hutchinson was held at Franklin County and later released on bond. No statement from him about the events that occurred that evening is in the record. 5 3 Irby started screaming as Carr pulled him out of the truck. </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/2003/02/02-1310.htm">02-1310 -- U.S. V. NOVITSKY -- 02/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Officer Wortham did not know whether Defendant was intoxicated. <p> Defendant reached up with his right hand as though to grasp the car door and help himself out. The pain compliance hold is an arrest control technique taught at the police academy in which an officer grasps an individual by the hand and twists to tighten up the arm. The twist hold divides the individual's attention: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1730.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Before he was convicted for being illegally present in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The primary question in this sentencing appeal is whether the disposition of at least one of Cuevas' state offenses 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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the decision to enhance Vandeberg's offense level was both erroneous and potentially harmful to his sentence. The only remaining issue is whether the District Court abused its discretion in setting the amount of restitution at $100. Vandeberg testified that the information his employer had given to the insurance company was not entirely accurate. The error was harmless. We further conclude that the District Court's error in applying a twolevel enhancement to Vandeberg's sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) may not have been harmless. The court should have clarified on the day of the hearing that it was deferring a final determination on the restitution issue for a particular period of time. Restitution is a part of one's sentence under the statutory scheme. We conclude that the error was harmless. Section 3664(d)(5) is not a jurisdictional statute. Were we to read it as terminating a court's jurisdiction 90 days after a sentencing hearing. Vandeberg was able to provide information to Tillema regarding the location of the Cincinnati home. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2544.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sandy</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. 922(g)(9) had not yet been enacted when he was convicted of the predicate domestic violence offense. We affirm.</SPAN></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://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/992232P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moore argues on appeal that: (1) his two convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. Officers also found a semiautomatic handgun and loaded magazine between the mattresses of the bed by which Moore was found. Documents related to Moore were also found in the apartment. After Moore was read his Miranda1 rights. He stated that he was staying there with his girlfriend. We will not overturn a verdict unless the evidence is such that a reasonable juror must have a reasonable doubt regarding the existence of 1 Miranda v. A. It is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0264p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vehicle was occupied by a man sitting in the driver's seat. The car engine was not running. Who was in uniform. Which was flanked by a dense woods. No. 02 5176 why he was there. He responded that he was meeting </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apparently she was right to be concerned. It seems that BBs are attracted to children's eyes as politicians are attracted to television cameras. The manufacturer of the air rifle which was used to shoot him. Alleging that the air rifle was defectively designed. The air rifle was kept in a locked gun cabinet. Nicholas took the safety lock off the gun and checked to see if the air rifle was empty. He pulled the bolt back and tilted the gun towards himself to see if there was a BB inside the rifle. He believed at this point that the rifle was empty. The result was painful and permanent injury to Aaron Swix and virtually complete loss of sight in his left eye. The plaintiffs argued that </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/02-11408.opn.html">HOLMES V. KUCYNDA (2/13/2003, NO. 02-11408)<BR></A><BR> We affirm that portion of the summary judgment that grants qualified immunity to the officers on Holmes' claim that they entered the apartment she was in without consent. Officer Rolfe was dispatched to the Post Woods Apartments in Atlanta. Holmes asserted in her deposition that the argument was not loud enough for anyone outside the apartment to hear. Both Holmes and Wisong were undressed and in bed. Wisong put on a pair of shorts and a shirt and went to answer the door while Holmes went across the hall to the bathroom to secure a robe. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031547p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jermane Bonner fled from police after the car in which he was a passenger was stopped for a routine traffic violation. Discovered that he was carrying crack cocaine. Articulable suspicion that Bonner was involved in criminal activity. The District Court reasoned that the sole basis for the stop was Bonner's flight from police. Mere flight when police appear on the scene is not sufficient to estab lish reasonable suspicion. PA 15219 Counsel for Appellant We will reverse. Although flight alone is not enough to justify a police stop. This is not a case of flight upon noticing police. The officers in this case were effectuating a legitimate traffic stop. Sweeney were in uniform and on duty at the police security booth at the entrance to the Ohioview Acres housing project in Stowe T o w nship . There were two passengers: the driver's brother. Driving in the direction Bonner was running. Which were later tested and found to be crack cocaine. The driver and other passenger were told to put the vehicle in park. </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054102p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charles Navarro was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment on August 19. We will affirm the District Court's sentence. Navarro was wanted on state charges of aggravated assault. Managed to escape capture.2 Section 2K2.1(b)(5) was renumbered in November 2006. Is now section 2K2.1(b)(6). Because this case is based on the Guidelines as they existed before November 2006. Navarro waited until the officer's vehicle was stopped. This latter incident was the basis of the aggravated assault charge that predicated the most recent traffic pursuit. 3 2 1 Navarro left behind some incriminating evidence. A local resident provided the police with a jacket that was found near the scene of the crash. Navarro was subsequently arrested and. Navarro was initially charged by state authorities with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. These charges were subsequently dismissed in favor of federal prosecution. He was not. Therefore there was no plea agreement. Was simple possession of cocaine and marijuana. Is not a felony. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0013p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Upon which his federal indictment is based. Was apprehended after a short foot chase. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0573n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown was convicted by a Michigan jury of second degree murder. He is presently serving a life sentence for the murder conviction. Two years for the firearm conviction that are to be served consecutively to the prior sentences. Despite the State's argument that many of the claims were unexhausted. Harvey Witcher were sitting in Witcher's Cadillac on a street in Detroit. A handgun and a shotgun were present in the car. Brown and Witcher struggled over the handgun and Johnson was fatally shot. Witcher was shot in the hip as he fled from the scene. Was parked nearby. Inside was a loaded shotgun with blood running down the barrel. Johnson was found lying face down in the street where the shootings had occurred. There was a factual dispute at trial as to whether Brown had a gun when he got out of the car and whether he shot at the police officers. No gun was ever recovered. McKee Brown was treated at a Detroit hospital for the gunshot wound to his arm. He was taken to the Detroit Police Department. Where he was questioned. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/02-11408.opn.html">HOLMES V. KUCYNDA (2/13/2003, NO. 02-11408)<BR></A><BR> We affirm that portion of the summary judgment that grants qualified immunity to the officers on Holmes' claim that they entered the apartment she was in without consent. Officer Rolfe was dispatched to the Post Woods Apartments in Atlanta. Holmes asserted in her deposition that the argument was not loud enough for anyone outside the apartment to hear. Both Holmes and Wisong were undressed and in bed. Wisong put on a pair of shorts and a shirt and went to answer the door while Holmes went across the hall to the bathroom to secure a robe. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-6145.htm">00-6145 -- FIELDS V. GIBSON -- 01/17/2002<BR></A><BR> A certificate of appealability was granted on the following four issues: (1) whether trial counsels' pressure of Fields to accept a blind guilty plea resulted in its being involuntary. (4) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-4131.htm">99-4131 -- U.S. V. MOJICA -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR> Mojica's sentence are undisputed for purposes of our review. Mojica was convicted of several crimes associated with a domestic violence charge in the Utah state courts in February 1998. She threatened to turn him in to the police for violation of probation in the domestic violence case because the shotgun was in the house. Rios was not at home. Mojica in the parking lot of his apartment complex while he was carrying the unloaded shotgun and fifteen rounds of ammunition in the carrying case. <p> <center>APPLICABLE LAW</center> <p> In September 1996. 922(g) was amended to make individuals who had . The applicable Sentencing Guidelines were amended effective November 1. Mojica was sentenced at base offense level 12 pursuant to a two point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. <em>See</em> U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 07/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012312.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 6 7 the sentence is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/993636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Accosted a man and a woman who were staying at the Cinnamon Bay Campground. Which is part of the United States National Park in St. Raped her again. 2 Queensborough then said that his friend </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043950p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because their complaint alleges concrete and particularized injuries that are fairly traceable to Ford's behavior and redressable in court. In an unpublished opinion we will call Danvers II. The District Court held that eight of the nine named Plaintiffs </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-2295.htm">96-2295 -- U.S. V. MCDONALD -- 08/04/1998<BR></A><BR> (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Semi automatic handgun he was pointing at her. Who was not armed. Where McDonald was apprehended by police when she stepped from the car. Both Lee and McLeod were subsequently ordered from the car. As he was getting out of the car. The shot proved fatal. <p> McDonald and Lee were charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy to commit bank robbery. McDonald and Lee also were charged on an aiding and abetting theory. 2255 relief. <p> We have already ruled on the issues raised by Lee. We have affirmed the district court's denial of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30422.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Who was in custody outside. Later claimed it was his wife's pistol. Allowing the detectives to determine that the pistol was loaded. Simon was indicted on the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). They testified that voice activated radios are used to relay information without pushing buttons. That rappelling ropes are used to climb buildings. That wedges are used to hold open windows and doors. That ski masks are used to conceal identities. That tactical vests are used to carry knives and ropes. That scanners are used to monitor police communications. Testified that the Duhon had given Melissa Simon the .25 caliber pistol for safety while Simon was away. He thought the lock was still attached to the BB gun. He contends that the Government introduced evidence of the burglary equipment and suspected stolen property found in Simon's home to suggest that Simon was a person of bad character. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/021401p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The trusteeship was imposed pursuant to Title III of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/001300P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stuckey challenges the sentence by claiming that four prior drug convictions stemming from a military court martial should not have been used to enhance his sentence as an armed career criminal. BACKGROUND Stuckey was charged in a two count indictment. Was delivering presents to his relatives in Arkansas on Christmas Day. He was driving over ninety miles per hour down Interstate 40 when stopped by Arkansas state trooper Sam Koons. Stuckey was driving a car owned by Sheila Gray. The other items in the duffle bag were men's clothes. Gray came to the police station and was asked if she owned any guns. The jury learned that the handgun was traced to a sale made in February 1998 by Ray Abel. Stuckey was the purchaser. The court found that Stuckey was subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 as an armed career criminal. Under which Stuckey was found to have: (a) distributed 4.52 grams of marijuana on August 26. Stuckey was arrested December 25. The guideline range would have been 51 to 63 months. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0559n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Michigan state prison after being found guilty in a bench trial of two counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner was tried and convicted of two counts of firstdegree criminal sexual conduct but was acquitted of the other three counts. Inasmuch as Petitioner was a third habitual offender under Mich. Which was based on inconsistent and inadequate findings of fact. B. FACTS The following facts were found by the state court of appeals. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413799.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to death for one of the murders.1 After exhausting his state court remedies. Because he was 17 years old at the time of his offenses.2 See Roper 125 S. Ct. at 1200 (concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003457P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even if his conviction were lawful. His sentence is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. Because we find that the District Court properly denied Wheat's motion to suppress and that the Apprendi error was harmless. Was being driven erratically in the northbound lane of Highway 169. The caller complained that the Nissan was passing on the wrong side of the road. Who was sitting in the front passenger seat. There were no other passengers. A check disclosed that Wheat's license was suspended but that notice of the suspension had The Honorable Mark W. Because Officer Samuelson was unfamiliar with the procedure for service. Because Officer Samuelson had noticed that the driver's hands were fidgeting. As Officer Samuelson was walking around toward the passenger side. Because it was raining during the duration of the stop. The dryness of the bag was remarkable. Wheat was indicted by a grand jury on one count of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-8093.htm">98-8093 -- U.S. V. SPRINGFIELD -- 11/17/1999<BR></A><BR> 4B1.4. <p> We have jurisdiction over defendant's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </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/2004/08/04-1003.htm">04-1003 -- SERNA V. COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 08/18/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Juanita Novak. Reverse and remand. <p> <strong>Factual Background</strong> <p> The following summary of facts is viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. The facts concerning Warden Novak's conduct are substantially supported by the record or undisputed. Are not material for the purpose of our summary judgment determination on the issue of excessive force. <p> To begin. It is undisputed Warden Novak ordered a lock down of the correctional facility in question after she received credible information a prisoner possessed a gun to be used in a planned escape. It is her understanding the Special Operations Response Team does not approach inmates when a lethal weapon is involved. It is undisputed the Special Operations Response Team removed Mr. Then returned him to his cell after discovering he was not one of the suspects. Which stated he suffered no injuries other than red marks on his wrists. <p> Of dispute are facts concerning the treatment of Mr. </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/41C6261BDE70D75888257187007BC638/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to </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/57D372AB427D025F88256E5A00707A76/$file/9910526.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is recalled. 2000 is amended as follows: I. Who testified that they could not say whether Henderson was the man who robbed their bank on West Sahara on January 16. He testified that Henderson was the man depicted in the photograph robbing that bank. Delete the first full paragraph and replace it with: 2682 Henderson contends no reasonable trier of fact could have found him guilty of the crimes alleged in Counts Two and Three because the testimony at trial showed that those two robberies occurred at the same time. Campisi gave conflicting testimony as to when the Bank of America at 1380 East Flamingo was robbed. She first testified it was robbed at 5:45 P.M. Later testified it was robbed at 5:53 P.M. She ultimately admitted she was not certain of the time of the robbery. Testified on crossexamination that the Wells Fargo branch where she worked at 4720 South Eastern Avenue was robbed at approximately 5:54 P.M. She clarified on re direct that this was only an approximation. That she was only sure that the robbery occurred just before the bank closed at 6:00 P.M. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314326.rem.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider our decision. In which we held that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant's conduct. James Maxwell was convicted of two counts of knowingly possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). After growing suspicious that Maxwell was using Wallace's computer to obtain and view child pornography. Which the court read to the jury: It is stipulated and agreed between the parties that the computer zip disk that is the basis for Count 1 of the Indictment. The computer floppy disk that is the basis for Count 2 of the Indictment. Were both manufactured outside the State of Florida and have been mailed. Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. The Government relied upon the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stanko's primary argument is that the district court1 erred in concluding that The Honorable Joseph Bataillon. Were convicted after a jury trial of multiple counts of violating the FMIA. Stanko sought a declaratory judgment that he was not prohibited from possessing firearms under § 922(g)(1) because his conviction fell within the § 921(a)(20)(A) exclusion. The district court reasoned that: (1) the exclusion 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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0244p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Galvan argues that his criminal history category should have been II because the district court erroneously added three criminal history points. To award three points for </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=02-2039.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'Brien</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief. May was charged with two conspiracy counts: involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and involvement in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. May pled guilty to the marijuana count and as part of his plea agreement the cocaine count was dismissed. Barbour had not told May that cocaine was being sent on this occasion. The receipt of the cocaine was unexpected and unwanted. He told the three men that he wanted nothing to do with cocaine and that he was withdrawing from the marijuana conspiracy.</P> <P> The kilogram of cocaine was divided into smaller quantities. There was a further shipment to Maine of forty two ounces of cocaine. The plea agreement provided that the maximum statutory sentence was twenty years' imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 841 (b)(1)(C). The parties stipulated that the quantity of marijuana attributable to May as relevant offense conduct was between 700 and 1. These questions were submitted to the district court for determination at the sentencing hearing.<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.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-10827-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Wallen was charged with possession of two firearms that were not registered to him in the national registry. I. Wallen's vehicle was stopped for speeding by Officer Bryan Miers. Wallen responded that he thought they were in his wallet that was somewhere on the passenger side of his truck. Who was alone. Miers noted that he was barefoot. Wallen stated that he did not have a license but that he was not carrying any concealed weapons. Miers then asserted that Wallen was carrying handguns. To which Wallen replied that he was carrying guns </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/2000/12/99-6258.htm">99-6258 -- U.S. V. HISHAW -- 12/20/2000<BR></A><BR> (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct11/03-10827-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Wallen was charged with possession of two firearms that were not registered to him in the national registry. I. Wallen's vehicle was stopped for speeding by Officer Bryan Miers. Wallen responded that he thought they were in his wallet that was somewhere on the passenger side of his truck. Who was alone. Miers noted that he was barefoot. Wallen stated that he did not have a license but that he was not carrying any concealed weapons. Miers then asserted that Wallen was carrying handguns. To which Wallen replied that he was carrying guns </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct27/03-10827-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Richard Wallen was charged with possession of two firearms that were not registered to him in the national registry. I. Wallen's vehicle was stopped for speeding by Officer Bryan Miers. Wallen responded that he thought they were in his wallet that was somewhere on the passenger side of his truck. Who was alone. Miers noted that he was barefoot. Wallen stated that he did not have a license but that he was not carrying any concealed weapons. Miers then asserted that Wallen was carrying handguns. To which Wallen replied that he was carrying guns </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=03-1823.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Who were leaders of the Winter Hill Gang. Access to the names of informants who were themselves providing information to the FBI about the criminal activities of Bulger and Flemmi. <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/91C50C69DE5D09D588256A06005FDB1B/$file/9910526.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is recalled. 2000 is amended as follows: I. Who testified that they could not say whether Henderson was the man who robbed their bank on West Sahara on January 16. He testified that Henderson was the man depicted in the photograph robbing that bank. Delete the first full paragraph and replace it with: 2682 Henderson contends no reasonable trier of fact could have found him guilty of the crimes alleged in Counts Two and Three because the testimony at trial showed that those two robberies occurred at the same time. Campisi gave conflicting testimony as to when the Bank of America at 1380 East Flamingo was robbed. She first testified it was robbed at 5:45 P.M. Later testified it was robbed at 5:53 P.M. She ultimately admitted she was not certain of the time of the robbery. Testified on crossexamination that the Wells Fargo branch where she worked at 4720 South Eastern Avenue was robbed at approximately 5:54 P.M. She clarified on re direct that this was only an approximation. That she was only sure that the robbery occurred just before the bank closed at 6:00 P.M. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4049_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since they all occurred in Indianapolis in face to face encounters with his victims and no car or cash or any other object was transported across state lines. Is an avenue of interstate commerce. The people who buy and sell through eBay are scattered around the world indeed most of the vehicle sales made through eBay are interstate or international. Which is the communication channel that people use in transacting through eBay. The buy and sell offers communicated over it in this case created interstate transactions and were affected by the defendant's fraud. The defendant further argues that it was unconstitutional for the district judge. To take account of the gun charge of which he was acquitted. He was convicted with respect to the gun used in the completed robbery but acquitted with respect to the gun used in an attempted robbery. The defendant's argument is wrong. All an acquittal means is that the trier of fact. Its constitutionality was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the McMillan case. It is inconsistent with giving controlling weight at the sentencing phase to an acquittal of one or some of the charges that were before the jury. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-5065.htm">97-5065 -- U.S. V. EIDSON -- 12/12/1997<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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-3274.htm">96-3274 -- U.S. V. BOLDEN -- 12/30/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055121np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that he was a kingpin in a drug trafficking operation in Luzerne County. Bobb now raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction on each of the three counts. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. DISCUSSION 2 A Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal obliges a district court to </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/03a0345p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. Stuut was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment. II A district court's determination that a defendant possessed a firearm during a drug crime is a factual finding that this court reviews for clear error. (2) such possession was during the commission of the offense. </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/03a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The general question presented by the relatively bizarre factual background of this case is whether or not a core function of municipal government the provision of firefighting services impacts interstate commerce such that an individual can be indicted under a federal anti arson statute for destroying a fire station. Is whether the Henning. Tennessee Fire Station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce such that the person charged with setting it ablaze can be indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). We hold that this particular fire station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Prometheus may have thought twice before handing down the gift of fire to humans had he imagined that those whom the mere mortals chose to steward the precious flame would use it to decimate the very mechanisms employed to control 1 No. 02 5185 United States v. </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.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1304p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will be affirmed. I. The facts of this case are undisputed. When there was no response. When she said that she was unable. He then told her that </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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995079.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) that the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Arguing that FACE is a violation of Congress's authority under the U.S. We conclude that damages under FACE are properly awarded jointly and severally among defendants and that FACE is constitutional. Were an ongoing threat to the Metropolitan Medical Associates ( </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/01opinions/01-1633.html">EATON CORPORATION V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL<BR></A><BR> Will &. With him on the brief were <u>Donna M. Blinkova</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael H. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Jerold B. Jr.</u><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>M. Line height:200%'>BACKGROUND</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>Eaton and Meritor are competitors in the market for heavy duty truck transmissions.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Heavy duty trucks such as eighteen wheelers often have ten or more gears. Causing the gears of the engine to rotate at a speed that will allow the driver. At which time the driver shifts.</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>Both Eaton and Meritor have attempted to design transmissions that simplify and improve the shifting process.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Eaton has developed a transmission that uses automatic shifting in the higher gears and manual shifting in the lower gears.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Using automatic shifting in only the top gears can permit optimal highway fuel economy while preventing the costs of automating from exceeding the savings from improved fuel economy.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>One disadvantage of automatic shifting is that an unexpected shift can cause the driver to lose control of the truck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/92-7005.opa.html">CROSS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cross v. Including its retroactive application of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.<p> FACTS<p> <p> The Alabama State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is the agency responsible for maintaining and operating various mental health facilities throughout the state. Is one such facility within the Department. Taylor Hardin is a forensic facility which provides psychiatric services. Are past or present female employees at Taylor Hardin. Are as follows: the state of Alabama. Horsley was commissioner of the Department and responsible for about 7. Poundstone was Stricklin's immediate supervisor since 1988. Stricklin was the director at Taylor Hardin since Taylor Hardin first opened in 1981.<p> Testimony at Trial<p> <p> (1) Parties to the legal action<p> <p> <i>Dr. Kara Cross is a licensed clinical psychologist. She was director of intermediate care at Taylor Hardin from September 24. Cross testified that Stricklin's<p> manner of communications with other women was extremely hostile. </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/04a0087p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The application of this standard is complicated here by the fact that Gaddis. We have carefully examined this tape along with the witnesses' testimony in reviewing the district court's judgment. (The mounted video camera on Officer Bain's patrol car yielded the tape that is the chief visual record of the encounter. Because the car's audio recording system was not working. The tape is silent.). Bain testified that Gaddis was also driving somewhat slowly. The interior of the car is dark on the tape and Gaddis's posture cannot be made out. The resolution of the video image is not high. The camera's point of view is slightly different from the vehicle driver's. Bain pulled up alongside Gaddis's car and confirmed to his satisfaction that Gaddis was leaning to the right. Bain testified that he suspected Gaddis was driving while intoxicated. To which Gaddis replied that his license was suspended (which turned out not to be true). </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=98-1271.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. On each occasion handing the teller a note warning: </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-2185.htm">01-2185 -- U.S. V. ROSS -- 12/28/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael Rene Ross pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/92-7005.opa.html">CROSS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cross v. Including its retroactive application of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.<p> FACTS<p> <p> The Alabama State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is the agency responsible for maintaining and operating various mental health facilities throughout the state. Is one such facility within the Department. Taylor Hardin is a forensic facility which provides psychiatric services. Are past or present female employees at Taylor Hardin. Are as follows: the state of Alabama. Horsley was commissioner of the Department and responsible for about 7. Poundstone was Stricklin's immediate supervisor since 1988. Stricklin was the director at Taylor Hardin since Taylor Hardin first opened in 1981.<p> Testimony at Trial<p> <p> (1) Parties to the legal action<p> <p> <i>Dr. Kara Cross is a licensed clinical psychologist. She was director of intermediate care at Taylor Hardin from September 24. Cross testified that Stricklin's<p> manner of communications with other women was extremely hostile. </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/27AB63C9C9BC5A4288256A31005B4E77/$file/9916974.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this police shooting case is whether the district court erred by giving the jury an excessive force instruction rather than a deadly force instruction pursuant to Tennessee v. We conclude that while the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the deadly force standard. The error was harmless. Monroe was armed with a long hunting knife. Was waiting for him outside the check cashing business with a ten speed bicycle. Who were down on the ground near the bicycle. Which was lying on the ground. Believing that Monroe and Lopez might have been in an accident. Drove next to them and started to get out of his car to ask if they were okay. Sherrard asked if everyone was okay. Concluding that it was not flat. Which was sticking out of Monroe's 1 These facts are taken from the trial testimony of both Monroe and Sgt. What happened next is hotly contested by the parties. Sherrard shot him while he was surrendering. Sherrard claims that he shot Monroe during a physical altercation because he believed that Monroe was going to seriously injure or kill him. </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-4023.htm">03-4023 -- U.S. V. KIMOANA -- 09/15/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/013046mo.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 ) OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: PER CURIAM: Appellant Jesse Kithcart was indicted for being a felon in possession of firearms. Which was discovered in his waist pouch ( </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/05a0278n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition. Was sentenced to 57 months in prison. Pittman filed a supplemental brief also challenging his sentence on the basis of a two level enhancement that was imposed for relevant conduct involving a weapon with an obliterated serial number. Was under surveillance by officers from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. Pittman was observed as he arrived riding on a motorcycle. The defendant then looked directly at the green Pontiac Grand Prix from which the officer was observing the defendant and abruptly went back into the house. Who was the defendant's long time </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/98/04/971593P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Henry Belitz was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Belitz Belitz pled guilty to the conspiracy charge and was sentenced by the district court2 to 60 months The Honorable Howard F. Two locked bags containing approximately six pounds of methamphetamine were found in a small refrigerator. Were found in a locked tool box. Belitz did not have a key to the locked bags and. Had given that key to Crestoni and did not have it in his possession at the time of the search. found in the basement. Scales and weapons were also Upstairs. Which are the subject of this appeal. A. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) Enhancement Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two level increase in a defendant's base offense level </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/99opinions/99-1431.html">JAZZ PHOTO CORPORATION V. DYNATEC<BR></A><BR> Inc.<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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0070p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 separates this calamity from many others is that police officers from the City of Lincoln Park. The depravity of the fact pattern often is enough to make </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=03-1558.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004556.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Gathers contends that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction. Must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The government is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts established to those sought to be established. We are bound by the credibility choices of the jury and we do not weigh evidence or review credibility of witnesses in resolving issues of substantial evidence. Gathers asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his § 924(c)(1) conviction. Ready accessibility is not required. The evidence demonstrates that Gathers transported the gun at issue in the trunk of a car he co owned and was driving at the time of his arrest. In which he was transporting crack cocaine. The only question is whether there was sufficient evidence to find that he possessed the weapon knowingly. Gathers also contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his § 922(g)(1) conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/99-4094.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (10/2/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-3360.wpd.html">UNITED STATE V. HOGAN<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. An institution the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation .... The two level increase in his base offense level for an express threat of death was based on the robbery note Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/99-4094.op2.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (10/2/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0349p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have assailed their correlative jury convictions for multiple counts of (1) aiding and abetting the felonious utterance of knowingly false statements by customers in the defendants' firearms 1 Nos. 03 1735/1736 United States v. Place of residence of firearms purchasers (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(5)).2 The defendants have framed five separate assignments of error. Each of which they have alleged to be individually sufficient to invalidate some or all of their convictions. Was a person legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms having an interstate or foreign commercial nexus. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Which unlawful weapons transfers were aided and abetted by the defendants via their willful acceptance and retention of fraudulent supporting documentation. P lace o f residence o f such person if the person is an individual. Or the identity and principal and local places of business of such person if the person is a corporation or other business entity. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(5). Tobacco and Firearms ( </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/A37B6F6085E78A7988256E5A00707AED/$file/9916974.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this police shooting case is whether the district court erred by giving the jury an excessive force instruction rather than a deadly force instruction pursuant to Tennessee v. We conclude that while the district court should have instructed the jury regarding the deadly force standard. The error was harmless. Monroe was armed with a long hunting knife. Was waiting for him outside the check cashing business with a ten speed bicycle. Who were down on the ground near the bicycle. Which was lying on the ground. Believing that Monroe and Lopez might have been in an accident. Drove next to them and started to get out of his car to ask if they were okay. Sherrard asked if everyone was okay. Concluding that it was not flat. Which was sticking out of Monroe's 1 These facts are taken from the trial testimony of both Monroe and Sgt. What happened next is hotly contested by the parties. Sherrard shot him while he was surrendering. Sherrard claims that he shot Monroe during a physical altercation because he believed that Monroe was going to seriously injure or kill him. </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/06/12/062036P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\12-4\06-2036.US V. WELLS.OPN.RWG.WPD<BR></A><BR> Wells told Officer Sedlmayr that he was prohibited from possessing firearms and that the Mauser belonged to Reents. Wells cooperated with Special Agent Hampton's questioning and told Elsen to give Special Agent Hampton a .22 caliber Marlin rifle ( </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/03/12/031324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruth Lee and Michael Sandmeyer were convicted by a jury of possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. Sandmeyer was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Even though this warrant was issued while the first search was ongoing. Sandmeyer now argues that his consent was not voluntarily given. The issue of whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact. None of which standing alone is dispositive. The government has the burden of showing that consent was voluntary. Sandmeyer's first theory is that because he was not told of the officers' warrant. His consent was involuntary. There is no merit to this argument. Even if hypothetically a defendant's knowledge of his or her ability to refuse could be relevant to whether his or her consent was voluntary. Sandmeyer was ignorant of were not ones that would have made him believe that he could prevent the search from proceeding. Held that the police need not obtain a warrant in those cases where they have probable cause to get one. </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=05-3169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The myriad provisions in the federal criminal code are justified. We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power </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/06a0462n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court did not commit plain error in imposing this sentence and because the sentence was reasonable. Bryan Oglesby then approached one of the tellers who was lying on the floor and demanded the keys to the vault. Another teller who was also on the floor. Oglesby grabbed her arm and pressed the gun he was carrying directly into her back as he escorted her to the vault area. Oglesby pressed the gun directly into the back of the teller's head as she opened the combination lock of the safe that was located inside the vault. Oglesby then emptied the money that was in the safe into a bag and ordered the teller back to the area where the other employees were still lying on the floor. As the teller responded that she was trying to comply. Defendant 2 grabbed the teller by the hair and the gun he was carrying discharged. The teller was injured with a gunshot wound to her head. When the supervisor indicated that she did not have the combination. As she was opening the vault. Who was in her office. </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051468np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> From inside the unmarked van where he was conducting surveillance. Whether the jury found Pryor 3 guilty on count seven is a matter of dispute in the present case. Crittenton was sentenced in December 2004. Crittenton was resentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. Pryor was sentenced in January 2005. Shortly after Booker was decided. No such notice was sent to Crittenton. We entered an order stating: Appellant's unopposed motion for summary remand is 4 granted. We have determined that the sentencing issues Appellant raises are best determined by the District Court in the first instance. No other aspect of his conviction or sentence was at issue. </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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/94-5193.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. RICHARDSON<BR></A><BR> Bobby Gene Richardson was convicted on eight counts of various drug trafficking offenses. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his firearm and conspiracy convictions. (3) evidence was erroneously admitted during trial. Stone were to act as middlemen between the purchaser. Stone that he would get back in touch with him when he was ready to do something else. Although the location for the purchase was later changed to Wann Cemetery in Oologah. Richardson had observed one of the surveillance officers while he was driving and had informed Mr. Richardson reaching down but could not see what he was reaching for. Richardson was arrested and a </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/955930.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We affirm Appellants' convictions and sentences. 1 Both Nurse and Frezer were also convicted of using or carrying a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. These convictions were vacated by the district court under Bailey v. Pendergrass was introduced to Rodney Wade and Nurse by their mutual friend. Wade and Nurse </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1331.htm">98-1331 -- U.S. V. EADS -- 08/18/1999<BR></A><BR> This transaction was videotaped. <p> The government also presented evidence at trial of numerous drug transactions not directly involving Mr. Eads was tried jointly with Robert Bernhardt and Jon Williams. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on count 1. (2) there was insufficient evidence that he participated in the charged conspiracy. (4) the jury instructions violated his right to have the charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (5) there was insufficient evidence that he had been twice convicted of felony drug offenses. (6) his sentence should not have been enhanced based on the purity of the drugs involved in the transaction because of the government's control over the quality of the drugs. 924(c)(1) was improper absent a finding that he knew that the firearm in question was a machine gun. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2010.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUMMERS (5/26/1999, NO. 98-2010)<BR></A><BR> We hold that it was applied to him in violation of the <EM>Ex Post Facto</EM> clause of the United States Constitution. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for re sentencing.</P> <P> The sole issue presented here is whether a two level sentence enhancement for making a </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-5165.htm">01-5165 -- U.S. V. CAVELY -- 02/04/2003<BR></A><BR> District Judge. <p> <center></center> <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-1458.htm">96-1458 -- U.S. V. THOMAS -- 06/09/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/024039P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 500 to a confidential informant ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2010.man.html">UNITED STATES V. SUMMERS (5/26/1999, NO. 98-2010)<BR></A><BR> We hold that it was applied to him in violation of the <EM>Ex Post Facto</EM> clause of the United States Constitution. We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for re sentencing.</P> <P> The sole issue presented here is whether a two level sentence enhancement for making a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1775p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that they did not have probable cause. Bensalem Township Police Officer Teresa Nelson was assigned to a radio patrol car on the evening shift. The final report which was received at approximately 10:43 p.m. did not specify either the time or location of the Bristol robbery. Bristol is north of. The alleged perpetrators of these robberies were described as </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5304b.html">FRAT ORDER PLCE V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the <p> briefs were <i>Frank W. Edwards</i> was on the brief for amicus curiae The <p> National Network to End Domestic Violence.<p> <p> Before: Williams. The first was 922(g)(9). Which adds <p> domestic violence misdemeanants </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-5127.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. ROJAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Members of the United States Coast Guard boarded the vessel while it was anchored approximately 200 miles southeast of Miami and 50 miles north of Cuba. Rojas admitted that the weapons were loaded onto the boat in Marathon. That he was attempting to smuggle them into Cuba in order to aid the resistance efforts against the Castro regime. Rojas argued that section 5861(d) is meant to protect Americans from unregistered firearms on American soil. Juries in the Southern District of Florida have acquitted defendants charged with similar offenses.<p> The district court granted Rojas's request for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-5127.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. ROJAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Members of the United States Coast Guard boarded the vessel while it was anchored approximately 200 miles southeast of Miami and 50 miles north of Cuba. Rojas admitted that the weapons were loaded onto the boat in Marathon. That he was attempting to smuggle them into Cuba in order to aid the resistance efforts against the Castro regime. Rojas argued that section 5861(d) is meant to protect Americans from unregistered firearms on American soil. Juries in the Southern District of Florida have acquitted defendants charged with similar offenses.<p> The district court granted Rojas's request for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. </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/984272.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4272 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0986p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The court is divided on the disposition of various issues and on certain issues there are majorities consisting of each of the three possible combination of judges. On other issues the court is unanimous. In this opinion I will set forth the ultimate conclusions reached and also will set forth the majority view on some points and my own view on other points. Judges Scirica and Lewis are filing separate opinions. As a matter of convenience I largely will deliver this opinion in the first person. Judge Scirica and I conclude that all the individual defendants are immune because their actions on May 13. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants Wilson Goode. Will reverse the denial of summary judgment on the section 1983 claims to defendants Brooks. Judges Scirica and Lewis conclude that the City of Philadelphia is not entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims and accordingly we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment to the city on those claims. </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/955036.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Should stand.1 Chong and Chang were convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm. Ct. 501 1 Argument before a three judge panel was held on October 29. Before an opinion in the case was published. Argument before the full court was heard on April 8. Chong and Chang were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap. Chong also was convicted of bringing in aliens. Chong and Chang claim that they are entitled to new trials because of numerous procedural errors made by the district court. The Chinese nationals were told by the smugglers that they could pay this </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=94-1958.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 2. Line 6 (footnote 1) change </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/355D3F746D70B25E88256FEA000A8C88/$file/0299008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Kozinski *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Richard Boyde was convicted in California state court of robbery. Boyde claimed he waited outside as Ellison entered the station. 3 Ellison was convicted of robbery. BROWN 4495 Brady Claim One of the key issues at trial was whether Boyde. Although there was some physical and circumstantial evidence on this score. Boyde's counsel could have used it to impeach Ellison's credibility. The key question is whether a secret agreement existed. 38 (Cal. 1988) that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/97-5304b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Frank W. Edwards was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Network to End Domestic Violence. The first was s 922(g)(9). Which adds domestic violence misdemeanants </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7455B5F0319F37D8825705F00569732/$file/0410213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Jamal Williams appeals the district court's order denying his motion to suppress as evidence a gun recovered when the car in which he was a passenger was stopped for a traffic infraction. While it is well established that an officer effecting a lawful traffic stop may order the driver and the passengers out of a vehicle. We now hold that a passenger's compliance with an officer's command to get back into the car in which the passenger had just exited is not an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Monica Miller was driving while Williams rode in the front passenger seat. When Miller explained that she did not have either. Williams was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Arguing that he was illegally seized during the traffic stop when Officer Mausz ordered him back into Miller's car. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. WILLIAMS II [1] </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/89-5669.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STARRETT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. All six appellants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for violating the conspiracy provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwMjYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4026-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCargo ( </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1772_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Four of the defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment and one received a prison term of 262 months. I. The Latin Kings are a national criminal organization (often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/982026P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nelson was committed to Willmar as chemically dependent and mentally ill in October 1994. When he was found missing. A pickup order was issued and his mother was notified. Nelson's mother nevertheless allowed him to stay with her while he was waiting to meet with his attorney. She reported that Nelson was screaming at her and threatening suicide. While his mother was on the phone. The record indicates that at the time Nelson was eighteen years old and 6'3 </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/991218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read </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/200112553.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Atrocious and cruel </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/89-5669.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STARRETT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. All six appellants were convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for violating the conspiracy provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614706.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a school speech case.1 On cross motions for summary judgment. Rachel Boim ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 08/24/2000<BR></A><BR> Although we agree with the district court that Holt's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was questioned about the presence of weapons in his vehicle. We reverse with directions to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Holt's consent to search his vehicle was nevertheless voluntary. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> On the evening of September 15. The impetus for establishing the checkpoint was the officers' suspicion that Holt. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The relevant facts surrounding their separate offenses and their respective sentencings are as follows. beyond the initial directive. We believe the original twentyone year old age limit is sufficiently clear to overcome an argument from silence. Our hesitance to infer too much from mere </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972319.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine whether an attorney who provided no defense at the guilt or penalty phase was ineffective in defending a young drug dealer. Who was an alcohol and drug abuser. When relief was denied in district court. We VACATE the denial of habeas relief as to the death sentence and REMAND to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Who was unemployed but a drug dealer and For factual completeness to address the issues on appeal in our independent review. We include facts from affidavits and expert reports that were exhibits at the 3.850 proceeding but were not part of the record before the district court. It was evident that we needed to review them. The exhibits were filed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/963075P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gregory Lynn Balanga was convicted in the district court1 by a jury on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Balanga argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the bottom of which was a second door that This second door was padlocked. basement contained a washer and dryer. Balanga allegedly stated to the police that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2008_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Two similar bank robberies are at the heart of this criminal case. The robber's identity and whether the same individual perpetrated each robbery were the central factual disputes at trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/033337P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Duane Frederick Fisher was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Fisher was stopped by police after a citizen reported to officers that a man matching Fisher's description had threatened him with a gun. Officers Clifford and Kingdon of the Minneapolis Police Department were driving through what they described as a violent. Was wearing a light brown plaid flannel shirt. Fisher and Lorenzo were cooperative and non threatening. The officers questioned Fisher and Lorenzo to determine whether Lorenzo was a truant. Where they were flagged down by a Hispanic male unknown to them. We will refer to this man as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3825.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which the plaintiffs claim that police officer Lawrence Wheeler used excessive force against Alexis Garvin when he shot and killed Garvin during the course of a burglary investigation. 2001 the case was reassigned from Judge Dillin to Judge Young. Who issued the decision from which Officer Wheeler appeals. 2 No. 01 3825 ruling that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Officer Wheeler's credibility. Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) Officer Ronald Mills received a radio call that there was a burglary at Hart's Automotive in Indianapolis. Officer Mills responded almost immediately to the call and was the first officer to arrive at the automotive shop. Officer Wheeler responded to the dispatch operator's call and was approaching Hart's from the west on 26th street. Garvin was walking eastbound on 26th street (away from the scene of the crime) and was not carrying anything in his hands. Wheeler drove his marked police vehicle to within 10 15 feet of Garvin and turned on the vehicle's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28B77331B4073A308825721700538150/$file/0510205.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Lionel Mendez was pulled over by two police officers for failure to display a visible license plate or registration tag. He was asked to exit the vehicle. Although there were three small children in the car. Told to sit on the curb behind the vehicle while a records check was conducted. Mendez ultimately told the officers that there was a gun in the car. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Two Phoenix gang enforcement officers pulled over a car driven by Mendez because they mistakenly thought that it did not have a license plate or temporary registration tag.2 Both officers testified that the sole purpose of the stop was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951994P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Submitted to the ATF a petition for remission declaring his ownership of the seized gun and asking to have it returned to him. Brown advised his half brother to have the weapon repaired at the Sure Shot Gun Shop. Where it was eventually seized during an ATF raid. We will address the other claims because they are likely to appear during a retrial. We will not. Character Evidence under Rule 405(a) Monteleone maintains that the district court committed reversible error when it permitted the prosecutor to question Albert Lowe concerning his knowledge of allegedly perjurious statements that Monteleone made before a federal grand jury.1 The 1 The disputed exchange proceeded as follows: My question to you was. Have you heard that [Monteleone] had testified before a federal grand 3 Q. district court has broad discretion in determining the propriety of impeaching questions to character witnesses. We will not reverse unless there has been a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982010.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that it was applied to him in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution. The sole issue presented here is whether a two level sentence enhancement for making a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-1082.htm">97-1082 -- U.S. V. BLAZE -- 05/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-2279.htm">97-2279 -- POWERS V. SHANKS -- 03/01/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was charged in a five count indictment with the murder of Cleon Richards. Who was confined to a wheelchair. Richards was intoxicated. Petitioner's convictions were upheld on appeal. <u>See</u> <u>State v. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. A bifurcated evidentiary hearing was held on August 27. This appeal followed. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 3. Was on brief for the United States. *Of the Third Circuit. Defendant Brian Pettiford was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Pettiford appeals on the grounds that (1) the district court should have granted his motion for acquittal because of insufficient evidence. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pettiford and one David Lewis were arrested in Joe's Pizza Shop in Roxbury. A firearm was found on Lewis' person. Another firearm was found in a trash can near which Pettiford was standing. Two other people were in the customer area of the shop. Claiming there was insufficient evidence from which to conclude that he possessed the second firearm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1882.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. We are not persuaded that any error occurred. The gun and ammunition were located within inches of the marijuana. The weapon's hammer was cocked. He claims to have returned the truck to the appellant on Monday (only minutes before Tyrie made the traffic stop). A. The Speedy Trial Act The Speedy Trial Act The appellant's principal claim is that the prosecution did not bring him to trial within the time frame prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. That the district court therefore should have dismissed the indictment. The baseline premise of the Act is its requirement. That a defendant is entitled 4 to be tried within seventy days of his indictment or initial appearance before a judicial officer (whichever first occurs). For the Act contemplates that certain periods of time will be excluded from the computation. The salient dates and events are essentially undisputed. 84 (1st Cir. 1991) (holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984709.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Kennedy was told that Babylon and two males would arrive in a gold four door Oldsmobile.2 Three Baltimore police officers. Were watching the parking lot when Merchant arrived driving a gold Oldsmobile with Ricky Scott in the front passenger seat and Babylon in the back seat. He believed Merchant was reaching for a gun concealed in the console and therefore grabbed Merchant's left arm. Prompting Holthaus to rotate Merchant's left arm until he was able to pull him toward the door and remove him from the car. 1 Kennedy received the page during an interview with DEA agents and Baltimore police. Kennedy agreed to have the conversation taped. (JA at 18). 2 The parties stipulated that the gold Oldsmobile driven by Merchant belonged to his mother and was registered in his grandmother's name. (JA at 113). 2 Holthaus stated that he was sure Merchant was reaching for the console because as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1736.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 6. (Castro) and Abraham Objio Sarraff (Objio) were arrested. Objio was convicted on a charge of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) (1988) (criminalizing the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1713_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lott was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 120 months in prison. Claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated when a potential juror vouched for the credibility of a government witness during voir dire in the presence of the entire venire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-1142.htm">02-1142 -- U.S. V. LOPEZ -- 06/23/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkes & Goldings were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Shay Jr. was tried first. The thrust of the government's case was that Trenkler had built the Roslindale bomb for Shay Jr. to use against his father. Finding that it was relevant on the issues of identity. Shea was involved in a dispute with the owners of the Capeway Fish Market and she wanted the bomb to use as a means to intimidate them. The device was later attached to the undercarriage of a truck belonging to the Capeway Fish Market 3. The charges were dismissed. 4 4 and detonated in the middle of the night. Was unable to find all of the items. Testimony from government investigators and Shay Sr. established that the Roslindale bomb was a remote control. A large donut shaped magnet and several smaller round magnets attached to the box were used to secure the device to the underside of Shay Sr.'s automobile. The bomb was originally attached to the undercarriage of Shay 6 6 Sr.'s automobile directly beneath the driver's seat. It probably would have killed or at least seriously injured any individual sitting in the driver's seat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981148P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The material facts of this case are uncontested. Ray Burroughs was diagnosed with diabetes in 1990. He was hired as a police recruit for the City of Springfield in 1995. After notifying the City of his diabetic condition and assuring the City that his condition was under control. The doctor reported that Burroughs was able to work with no limitations. Koppers concluded it was inappropriate for Burroughs to maintain a position requiring him to carry a gun. Noting that it is possible for Burroughs to learn to control the episodes by the careful timing of meals and activities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rios Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Lorenzo Pé. Castillo</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Os Rosario</U> were on brief for appellant Peñ. Were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991530.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue presented in this appeal is the difficult question of who must bear the burden of persuasion when a criminal defendant raises a justification defense to the federal charge of being a felon in possession of afirearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order of conviction and sentence. I. Facts and Procedural History Reginald Dodd was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The only question at trial was whether Dodd was justified in possessing the gun for the purpose of preventing harm to others. The justification defense in our court has four elements: (1) that the defendant or someone else was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury. (4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal act and the avoidance of the threatened harm. That Dodd had picked it up in order to keep it out of the hands of a group of young children who were coming down the street. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/043863P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mark Samples was convicted of robbing a credit union in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He also pleaded guilty to and was convicted of failing to appear for trial in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). He argues that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's improper and prejudicial use of three categories of evidence: (1) evidence of his flight as consciousness of guilt. The gun was fully loaded and he had placed tape over the serial numbers. The bicycle crashed while he was riding down a steep hill. A bench warrant for his arrest was issued on June 3. Samples fled the jurisdiction with his son and was found and arrested 15 months later in Ohio. 2 At trial. Samples argued that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Along with the side effects of the drug Interferon that he was taking for Hepatitis. His depression level </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982010.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that it was applied to him in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution. The sole issue presented here is whether a two level sentence enhancement for making a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/96-3102a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: Appellant Richard Gartmon was convicted of interstate transportation of securities obtained by fraud and of money laundering in connection with a scheme to defraud the George Washington University Health Plan. (3) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial after federal agents spoke with an excused alternate juror who subsequently was re empaneled. (4) the evidence was insufficient to establish venue in the District of Columbia on most of the money laundering counts. Was also charged with subornation of perjury. He told her she was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7581BA34AFFC45D288256E6F007228B0/$file/0199022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stankewitz is on death row in California. In his claim that his counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of Stankewitz's trial. Who is of Native American heritage. Was born into a life of abuse and deprivation. He says he was physically and sexually abused. We conclude that counsel's failure to try to give the jury this kind of information that might have humanized Stankewitz. Appears to have fallen below constitutionally acceptable professional standards. He was headed for Fresno. In his company were his mother. The officers contacted Sacramento police but were unable to determine whether the car had been stolen. They were allowed to leave. The vehicle was impounded. The bus depot was not open when they arrived. Greybeal stated that none of this would have happened if she had had her dog with her. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-7143a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief were Robert M. It places others in programs geared to youths who have committed less serious crimes or seem relatively likely to stay out of trouble. No minimum standards were required of District providers generally. Who did have experience with at risk youths but. Nor did these doors have locks. Doors leading into individual units did have locks. All of which was the case at Queenstown </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0764n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Player argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence resulting from the search of a vehicle he was operating when arrested. That there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Two individuals were seated in the Oldsmobile. Player was detained in the back of the police cruiser while Officer Brown apprehended the passenger. Wright was arrested and subsequently charged with aggravated menacing in connection with the incident at the drive through. Officer Baca discovered that Player did not have driving privileges and therefore arrested him for driving without a valid driver's license. Because both occupants of the Oldsmobile were arrested. The vehicle was impounded. Before the vehicle was impounded. The defendant was sentenced to [a] three (3) year term of imprisonment on each count to be served concurrent with each other. Player was convicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm 3 No. 05 3566 USA v. He asserts that the inventory search was unreasonable because it was allegedly conducted for the purpose of investigation only. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B235B372AEA6EF188256CEE0080CC3B/$file/0150495.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCoy challenges the section of the federal statute that prohibits the possession of child pornography made with materials that have traveled in interstate commerce. We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed. Or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution. Were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys. Kala were spending an evening at home. Her two older children were placed with foster care parents. Although only Kala was alleged to have played any role in the event that led to the arrest of her mother and stepfather. 1 UNITED STATES v. This pose was captured in one photograph. Rhonda was also charged with one count of manufacturing child pornography using materials transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).3 Rhonda and Jonathan filed It is. District attorney declined to file charges). 3 Although § 2251 is generally referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984459.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Welch gave investigators a written statement as to the events that evening and indicated that the robber's teeth were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Turner Murders his Wife and Joyce Brown The facts concerning the two murders largely are undisputed. Turner repeatedly arrived at Joyce's apartment asking to speak to his estranged Irene Hall also went by the nickname </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="438"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042160np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Terrance Branch was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He was tried to a jury and subsequently sentenced to 120 months imprisonment. Branch also argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury on joint possession because the evidence that he possessed the firearm was legally insufficient. Informed him that a firearm was hidden in the home's utility room. They were accompanied by four back up law enforcement officers. Branch and his then girlfriend were present during the search. Haggerty asked Branch </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-4094.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (8/23/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/062810P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cory Bradley was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the government did not prove that he knowingly possessed a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Discovered she was driving with only a learner's permit. Who was sitting in the passenger seat. If he had a driver license because Hogan was only permitted to drive if she was accompanied by a licensed driver. Bradley replied that he did not have any identification. While Ormerod was speaking with her. Ormerod asked Bradley whether he was carrying anything illegal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzOTRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1394_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Giordano's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for civil rights violations under color of law. Was convicted of two counts of civil rights violations under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The majority of which are addressed in a separate summary order also filed today. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Was a target of this investigation. The government reviewed the contents of a brief July 9 call between Jones and Giordano that suggested that Jones was bringing a nine year old girl to Giordano for sex. Giordano asked if Jones would have with 3 her the nine year old or another female whose age was not discussed. The government intercepted a call between Giordano and Jones in which Giordano told Jones about the message and discussed who might have left it. Giordano asked if the father of the second individual was alive. V1 and V2 to see Giordano was demanding $200 not to tell the authorities. Jones then called Giordano and falsely told him the driver was demanding additional payment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzOTRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1394_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Giordano's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for civil rights violations under color of law. Was convicted of two counts of civil rights violations under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The majority of which are addressed in a separate summary order also filed today. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Was a target of this investigation. The government reviewed the contents of a brief July 9 call between Jones and Giordano that suggested that Jones was bringing a nine year old girl to Giordano for sex. Giordano asked if Jones would have with 3 her the nine year old or another female whose age was not discussed. The government intercepted a call between Giordano and Jones in which Giordano told Jones about the message and discussed who might have left it. Giordano asked if the father of the second individual was alive. V1 and V2 to see Giordano was demanding $200 not to tell the authorities. Jones then called Giordano and falsely told him the driver was demanding additional payment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzOTRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1394_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Giordano's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for civil rights violations under color of law. Was convicted of two counts of civil rights violations under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The majority of which are addressed in a separate summary order also filed today. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Was a target of this investigation. The government reviewed the contents of a brief July 9 call between Jones and Giordano that suggested that Jones was bringing a nine year old girl to Giordano for sex. Giordano asked if Jones would have with 3 her the nine year old or another female whose age was not discussed. The government intercepted a call between Giordano and Jones in which Giordano told Jones about the message and discussed who might have left it. Giordano asked if the father of the second individual was alive. V1 and V2 to see Giordano was demanding $200 not to tell the authorities. Jones then called Giordano and falsely told him the driver was demanding additional payment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053423P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Edward Maloney was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. He was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. I. Maloney was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. While he was driving behind the vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031638P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lee quickly realized that his home was being burglarized. Deputy Bank dispatched a description of the truck and the direction it was traveling. United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 2 1 This truck was reported stolen earlier that day. 2 and began to pursue a truck matching that description as it sped past their position. Sergeant Trader followed the men and immediately apprehended one suspect­identified as Fabian­who was hiding in a ditch near the crash site. Fabian and Michael were each charged with one count for unlawful possession of a firearm. Alleging that the police arrested him illegally because of his race and because Sergeant Trader's identification of him at the jail was impermissibly tainted. Who matched the description of the suspect involved in a high speed chase and who was found hiding in a field a short distance from the crash site of the stolen white pickup truck. The magistrate judge found that Sergeant Trader's identification of Michael at the jail was not tainted by inordinate suggestibility because 1) the defense produced no evidence 3 that Michael was the only African American in the holding cell. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/054262P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Tindall was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. Was driving past a strip of night clubs in Little Rock. He was intoxicated. Was transporting a prisoner to jail when he observed Tindall and the individuals performing the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/01-1557.htm">01-1557 -- U.S. V. RADCLIFF -- 06/16/2003<BR></A><BR> Was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and of carrying a firearm during and in relation to that conspiracy. He was sentenced to 288 months of imprisonment. <p> Defendant now challenges three aspects of the proceedings before the district court. He contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his firearm conviction. Defendant contends that wiretap evidence used against him at trial should have been suppressed because of a defect in the order authorizing the wiretap. The evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that Defendant carried a firearm during and in relation to the methamphetamine conspiracy. The district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the wiretap evidence because the omission in the wiretap order was merely a technical defect. <p> We do not have jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a downward departure at sentencing. Defendant was indicted along with eighteen others for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041449np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties are familiar with the case. We will only recite the pertinent facts. Hoffman was one of Rosado's distributors. Hoffman telephoned Rosado and told him that he was coming to Philadelphia with $30. He drove to Hoffman's house to pick him up and that when Hoffman came out of his house he was carrying a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/96-6202.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044134p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Craig Brownlee was convicted by a jury of carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3 1 out of the car. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/93-5179.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Appellant was convicted of two counts of making false statements to a firearm's dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm (Counts I and II). Appellant was sentenced to a seventy eight month term of imprisonment for his violations of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032282P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marcus Jones was convicted of one count of making false statements in the acquisition of a firearm and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. His conviction was upheld on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-3278.htm">96-3278 -- U.S. V. GOTTLIEB -- 04/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The statute requires the district court to sentence to life in prison any person who is convicted in federal court of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-7032.htm">97-7032 -- U.S. V. WOODLEE -- 02/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Contending: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because we believe there is sufficient evidence to support the Woodlees' convictions and the court did not err during trial or sentencing of any of the defendants. Were drinking and shooting pool. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1497.htm">99-1497 -- MONUMENT GUN SHOP, INC. V. SCHUPPER -- 08/11/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal has its origins in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy. Which was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. Who was the president. 596 (10th Cir. 1997). <p> Plaintiff argues two points of alleged error: (1) the bankruptcy court erred in conducting the adversary proceeding trial before the criminal proceedings against him were completed. Porfilio</a> <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0596n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) there was insufficient evidence that he constructively possessed the firearm. One of whom was on a bicycle. Were talking to one another and looking down at their hands. Cole later testified that the men's conduct was consistent with a narcotics transaction. It became clear to Cole that the object was a pistol. That it was under the front tire of the van. Then notified dispatch by his car radio that he was pursuing a suspect who had abandoned a weapon. Cole testified that there was no one else in the area of the parking lot. Which recited that Collins was approached by an unknown male who was trying to sell a handgun. No fingerprints were recovered from the firearm. An indictment was issued that charged Collins with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Based on the fact that her son was incarcerated. Based on the juror's statement that his nephew was treated unfairly in a federal prosecution. No other jurors were challenged or stricken for cause. Thirty two jurors were randomly selected. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1169.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harris was indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. She was released for one day to place her affairs in order. She failed to surrender and later was arrested in California. Judgment of conviction was entered on January 16. Harris was clad only in panties. Riley was wearing only shorts and no shirt. Neither appeared to have been awakened recently. Harris corroborated that identification by nodding that he was Ward. Harris later admitted he Nos. 02 1169 & 02 1179 3 was Terrance Riley. The bowl was very warm to the touch. There was a second loaded 9mm Ruger in a laundry room adjacent to the kitchen. Harris told Detective Brian Gore that she was in the bedroom preparing to go to sleep. Harris had a prior felony conviction and that the firearms were not manufactured in Indiana. So they must have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-1435.htm">02-1435 -- U.S. V. ABDENBI -- 03/22/2004<BR></A><BR> Introduction</strong> <p> Defendant appellant Samir Hedi Ben Abdenbi was charged. Concluding that the encounter between Abdenbi and three federal agents which occurred in Abdenbi's apartment was wholly consensual.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/97-5304a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Frank W. The essence of the 1996 amendments was to (1) extend a pre existing criminalization of firearms posses sion by persons convicted of domestic violence felonies to persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The amendments bringing about this change are as follows: Section 922(d)(9) of Title 18 makes it illegal to provide a firearm to any person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2311.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Maddox if he was armed. Maddox replied that he was. Page was staying in the mobile home of Richard </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/024064u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. I. Sobratti was arrested on the evening of June 2. Were patrolling the area of Glimpses Nightclub in a police vehicle. Who was leaning against the rear part of the driver's side of the Celica and facing away from the officers. Who was standing next to an open door on the passenger's side of the Celica. Ramos was detained. Which was still lit. Sobratti was standing next to an open door on the passenger's side of the Celica with one hand on top of the roof and his other hand over Gumbs testified on cross examination that they merely </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032001np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. We will affirm. I. Because the facts of the case are known to the parties. As it was the verdict winner. Brightwell was present at the store at the time of the search. Testified that he was rarely there and delegated operational authority to an employee. He should not have been convicted because the government did not sufficiently establish that he had constructive possession of the guns and drugs. It is clear that Brightwell did not have actual possession of the guns and drugs. Brightwell's presence in the bathroom immediately before the gun was found. Is sufficient to support his conviction for constructively possessing that gun. 1 2 3 1. Brightwell was charged with possessing three of these four guns one found in the bathroom from which Brightwell was exiting when the search began. The answer is ultimately controlled by our decision in Jackson v. Despite the fact that they were recovered from a room in which the lessee's relative. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032698p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002] today is I am very. That term is terrorist. There are many different kinds of terrorists. We all know too well the kinds of terrorists that caused the attacks of the anniversary so to speak we will mark tomorrow. There are very different kinds of terrorists. (Argued) West Long 105 North Front Street Suite 205 think this defendant is one of them. You heard testimony that he was forcing kids to do drug transactions for him. Is. Is best exemplified by the prosecutor's direct examination of the government's key witness. Through whom he elicited the many ways in which Moore was physically violent. It was also seen when the prosecutor. Could anyone disagree with the government that Moore was a bad man if not some species of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FDBAD6724F624EEB88256CCA00112B51/$file/0056770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No member of the court requested a vote on the en banc request and all of the judges on the panel have voted to deny a rehearing. The petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The Appellant's emergency motion for immediate release is DENIED. The Appellee's emergency motion for modification of the opinion is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: Slip Op. page 29. Change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD89E0111BECD15888256D8E005A3A94/$file/0230079.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were socializing at Pioneer Park. When approximately nine white supremacists who were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4DB77D49607482588256E010072AA63/$file/0216829.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shaw was convicted in a California state court on multiple counts of assault. Shaw was sentenced to 136 months in prison. Was convicted on the same counts. Shaw asserts that his due process rights were violated by the state prosecutor's advancement of factually inconsistent arguments at the two trials. His habeas petition was denied by the district court on August 5. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We now conclude that the state court decision upholding Shaw's conviction was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-4262.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. SPRING<BR></A><BR> Spring and Matthew Corey Monitz were involved. Spring was arraigned on August 19. Monitz were tried separately. Spring was set for October 4. A superseding indictment was filed on September 8. The superseding indictment also alleged that several of the crimes charged in the original indictment were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. A new trial date was set for February 7. A hearing was held on the withdrawal motion on January 21. I think we ought to have new counsel appear as soon as that is reasonably possible so that we can have these new dates set. The order memorializing the court's findings in the January 21 hearing was not in fact entered until November 22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that jury trial in this matter currently scheduled to commence on February 7. Is vacated and will be rescheduled upon appointment of new counsel for defendant. The continuance resulting from this appointment of new counsel is necessary to insure continuity of counsel for defendant and to allow reasonable time necessary for effective preparation by new counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/00-2440.htm">00-2440 -- U.S. V. HIGGINS -- 03/11/2002<BR></A><BR> Jinks were charged with using a house outside the city limits of Albuquerque as a place to manufacture methamphetamine. Was also indicted on those three counts plus one count of possession of ammunition after a former felony conviction. Ortiz entered into a plea agreement with the government and was a key witness at the trial of the three Defendants. <p> In a joint trial. All three Defendants were convicted on all three counts. Higgins was subsequently sentenced to three concurrent sentences of 235 months' imprisonment. That the sentences imposed on the Defendants must be reconsidered because the calculation of drug quantity by the district court at the sentencing hearing lacked a proper evidentiary basis. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> The house at which Defendants were arrested was described as being in the mountains east of Albuquerque in the town of Tijeras. The area was remote. There was no power or water and the toilet had been dismantled. The inspector said it was hazardous just to walk around the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-3262.htm">00-3262 -- U.S. V. AVERY -- 07/09/2002<BR></A><BR> He asserts that all of his convictions should be overturned because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. Was conducting surveillance on a residence suspected of housing drug trafficking activity. Avery was driving with a suspended license. Officer Shade immediately believed the substance was powder cocaine and placed Mr. Avery was never charged in connection with these narcotics. <p> After arresting Mr. Officer Shade asked him if there were any other drugs in the car. A confidential informant told agents </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF435A64C4744DB788256D8300585BA9/$file/0255881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Johnson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-6078.htm">99-6078 -- U.S. V. COPLEN -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Coplen's sole argument on appeal is that his conviction on counts one through four must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence of intent to cause death or serious bodily harm under the federal car jacking statute. We conclude there was sufficient evidence of the requisite intent and affirm Mr. BACKGROUND</u></strong> The following facts were alleged at trial: <p> On May 13. Coplen backed up and appeared as though he was confused and did not know what to do next. Who was loading paint into a van. Coplen was convicted on all five counts with which he was charged. On appeal he argues that there was insufficient evidence of intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> <p> Section 2119. Congress' inclusion of the intent element requires the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have at least attempted to seriously harm or kill the driver if that action had been necessary to complete the taking of the car. <u>Holloway v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6202277450F07A7882571800072E93A/$file/0550000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Rios) was convicted by a jury of seven counts relating to a conspiracy with his father. Rios was convicted of (1) one count of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The drug trafficking crime that Rios was convicted of furthering was the conspiracy crime. Rios contends that the evidence produced at trial was not sufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under § 924(c)(1)(A). Sr. at the Burlington apartment on several occasions and testified that Rios was present on at least three of those occasions. The fact that Rios contested that charge is no longer a valid reason to deny the downward adjustment. We further note that Rios was sentenced before United States v. So the district court's reconsideration of a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility will be in the context of the now advisory sentencing guidelines. Rios's residence is a three room suite containing a rear bedroom. Also in the front room was a dresser. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2219.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Appellant Michael Flemmi ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0464p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Smith's right not to be seized by deadly force when fleeing arrest was clearly established at the time he was killed. Deputy Sheriff Marty Dunn was on patrol in north Hamilton County. Cheri Smith was living with Quarles at the time because she was separated from her husband. He came to the conclusion that Smith was not so impaired as to justify an arrest. Dunn observed that Smith's car was still in the lot. Dunn patted Smith down to be sure that he did not have any weapons or other contraband. Smith was cooperative with Officer Dunn. Dunn's police cruiser was not equipped with a security partition separating the front seat from the back seat. The facts from this point forward are heavily disputed. The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly held. Fill out the necessary paperwork to have Smith's vehicle towed. Smith was left unsupervised in the patrol car with the engine running and the keys in the ignition. As they were going about the business of preparing Smith's car to be towed. Both Dunn and Rutherford claim they heard the patrol car being placed into gear and turned to see Smith had made his way into the front seat and was now behind the wheel of the vehicle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A604F0FFE02DDEBE882572E2007DDD96/$file/0550698.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is AMENDED as follows. The first full paragraph on page 712 currently states: Our cases have consistently upheld a four point enhancement for those whose role. Was that of organizing or leading a drug distribution conspiracy. We held that it was not clear error to impose a four point enhancement where defendant negotiated sale of chemicals for production of methamphetamine with an undercover agent and gave an order to coconspirator to make delivery. 5 F.3d 365. 691 (9th Cir. 1993). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3087.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was charged in Minnesota state court with fleeing a peace officer. Defendant's last appearance in state court was on September 11. The day he was scheduled for trial. The court and the (1) This order and judgement is not binding precedent. The notices were returned to the sender. Warrants were issued for his arrest. Defendant was with Strain when police arrested Strain in the parking lot of the apartment complex. She assumed the object was a shotgun because of its shape and the manner in which Defendant was holding it. The trips were also characterized. Such descriptions are consistent with either ammunition boxes and/or storage containers for handguns. At least two of the handguns were found in black gun boxes. (1) and the SKS rifle was partially covered with an orange hunting vest. Defendant was charged with being a fugitive in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(2). Claiming the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained false or reckless statements in (1) Defendant asserts that one of the gun cases was maroon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-4094.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. FULFORD (8/23/2001, NO. 99-4094)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/918FF925C122923988256E5A00707D3E/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/96-6202.man.html">UNITED STATES V. WILSON (8/12/1999, NO. 96-6202)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Christopher Wilson and Eric Herndon were convicted in separate trials of charges relating to the trafficking of crack cocaine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-6274.htm">00-6274 -- U.S. V. OWENS -- 10/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant David Owens. Owens challenges his conviction on three grounds: that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the carjacking conviction. That he was entitled to a three level sentence reduction because the carjacking was not completed. Everett and Mary Baxter were stopped at a stoplight at the intersection of S.W. 4th and Classen in Oklahoma City. Our inquiry is limited to determining whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. <u>Jackson v. The evidence also sufficiently supports the remaining elements intent to take the car and intent to cause death or serious bodily harm. <p> While it is true that Owens never explicitly announced his intent to take the Baxters' car. 797 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding an attempted carjacking conviction where the defendant pointed a gun at a driver but was shot before he had an opportunity to take control of the vehicle). <p> Ample evidence supports a jury finding that Owens intended to cause death or serious bodily injury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DC31565EE9861E088256C930001F0D4/$file/0056770.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Michael Alvarado was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery and is currently serving a 15 year to life sentence in California state prison. Alvarado's conviction was obtained primarily based on statements he made during a two hour interrogation that occurred when he was 17 years old. Alleging that he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights in violation of Miranda v. Our review of this case is governed by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Which permits us to grant a federal writ of habeas corpus only if the underlying state court decision is either contrary to. The Supreme Court established the legal principle that juvenile defendants are. Haley and its progeny are highly instructive precedents to the case now before us. If a juvenile is more susceptible to police coercion during a custodial interrogation. Then the same juvenile is also more susceptible to the impression that he is. 112 (1995) (stating that an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5224.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arthur Earl Taylor was charged in a one count indictment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 188 months' imprisonment. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> he contends that the indictment was improperly duplicitous because it charged him with two or more separate offenses in the same count. Taylor was charged with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition between September 19. Taylor afterwards provided the following written statement to the police: About two weeks ago I went into a house which the front door was standing wide open and I went in and saw a bunch of stuff scatered all over the dining room floor. A couple of days I had broken my right little toe and my toe was bothering me realy bad and I took my boots off. My keys got caught on the striker plate and broke the ring on my keys were hanging from and I layed them on a weight bench. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1175.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. Defendant appellant Pedro Infante Ruiz was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for having knowingly received while a fugitive from justice a firearm transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(2) and 924(a). Infante and two associates were driving a rented 1991 Mazda 626 in the vicinity of Parguera. Officers of the Puerto Rico police were following the car. Infante resisted but was eventually restrained and placed inside a nearby unmarked squad car. De la Paz handed over the key to the trunk in response to the request and stood by without objection as the trunk was being searched. Were inside the trunk. Said that he was the owner of the brown briefcase. Inside were various documents belonging to Infante. Also inside was a loaded .22 caliber Derringer pistol. Infante was later charged with knowingly receiving while a fugitive from justice a firearm transported in interstate commerce. De la Paz and the other passenger were not arrested. 3 Infante moved to suppress the gun. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/93-5179.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Appellant was convicted of two counts of making false statements to a firearm's dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm (Counts I and II). Appellant was sentenced to a seventy eight month term of imprisonment for his violations of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1381.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The problem with wishes is that they sometimes come true. The Old Man and Death (circa 550 B.C.) (predicting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52F840BF69A5E89F88257077004FB57F/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AAF7480A4A794A48825728F0000A4E2/$file/0610062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lopez contends that insufficient evidence supported his convictions under these counts because no rational jury could have found each of the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was in the passenger seat. Lean over as if he were placing something under his seat. The officers learned who Lopez was and that he was a convicted felon and a previously deported illegal alien. Lopez was unable to provide any corroborating information. The cocaine was divided into multiple </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0222p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B0A7A0B083ABFEE88256E62007F669A/$file/0257117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain *Petitioner is now being held at Centinela State Prison. Giurbino is the Warden at Petitioner's place of confinement. Is authorized under Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. **The Honorable Myron H. The body was uncovered below the waist. Rollins told the jury that he later happened to drive up to the road by the beach just in Although there were only two bullet holes on the body and the police found only two shell casings at the scene. Any one of the bullets could have caused Gonzales' instant death. 1 JACKSON v. Only Rollins testified that he saw Jackson having sex with Gonzales and that Jackson and Sattiewhite were with the victim on the road by the beach. That petition was rejected as time barred. Jackson's case was heard by a United States Magistrate Judge. We now have jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and § 1291. We may not grant Jackson habeas relief from his state court conviction unless the state court proceedings were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/373C283753E753B188256AFD0017B922/$file/9799031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases are the predominant ones. He also asserts that (4) the 1978 California death penalty statute under which he was convicted and sentenced is unconstitutional. We agree with the courts that have already reviewed this case that. Regardless of whether the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the guilt phase was deficient. We hold that the performance of Mayfield's counsel at the penalty phase was deficient and that Mayfield suffered prejudice as a result. The state court shall conduct a new sentencing proceeding to determine whether Mayfield is to be sentenced to death or to life without parole. The car was repossessed because of delinquent payments. Byron was in possession of the car for only three days before it disappeared from the Popes' driveway. Mayfield and two of his friends were arrested in the car a day later. Mayfield pled guilty to one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle and was released pending a sentencing hearing. He was told that he would be sentenced to one year in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-6378.man.html">HAYS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hays v. Henry's friend and later accomplice James </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1069.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Shea and DiMartino were tried together and convicted on all counts before a jury. Shea was sentenced to 382 months of imprisonment. Shea challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress several statements he made after his arrest and of his motion for discovery of any rewards provided to FBI agents who were assigned to investigate him. The defendant argues that the government is precluded from asserting that he used and carried a certain semiautomatic weapon which the government had previously attributed to his co defendant Schurko. When the Cherokee was about 60 to 65 yards from the bank. Shea's car was forced into a telephone pole. Who was carrying a police scanner and was armed with a fully loaded Smith & Wesson revolver tucked in his pants. Which was loaded with 42 rounds of ammunition including one round in the chamber. Was also apprehended by FBI agents. Shea was charged in a three defendant. Shea and DiMartino were tried together before a jury. He was sentenced to a total of 382 months of imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hayden </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1222.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cancio & Cancio Reichard were on brief for appellants. Portela and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellees. Concluding that the fight between the two men that led to Ortega Barreto's death was personal in nature and thus Officer Medina Vargas was not acting under color of state law when he shot Ortega Barreto. We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment. He did not have a license. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-6378.man.html">HAYS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hays v. Henry's friend and later accomplice James </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/05-3093a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A.J. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. After the case was assigned to a federal district judge. Because there are neither findings nor evidence sufficient to assess the constitutionality of the roadblock. The roadblock was marked by uniformed officers waving flashlights and police cars with flashing overhead lights. It was manned by approximately sixteen officers. To ensure that Bowman did not have a weapon. Bowman was eventually restrained and searched. The magistrate judge did not have authority to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (2) even if the magistrate did have that authority. The dismissal order was erroneous as a matter of law because it should have been made without prejudice. Arguing that they were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding that the roadblock was conducted for a legitimate purpose and that Bevilacqua had a reasonable basis for detaining Bowman and conducting a limited pat down. The Speedy Trial Act provides that an indictment must be filed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01ABC8F5B832A3D78825727A0001AEA4/$file/0550698.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was three months more than the top of the calculated guideline range due to Ingham's extensive criminal history. Ingham argues that the district court did not reconcile his objection under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) that only a two point increase in the offense level was proper because the district court did not explicitly address the question of whether Ingham exercised control over his fellow co conspirators. Ingham contends that the district court's application of the advisory Guidelines under Booker was contrary to the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. An indictment was filed against Ingham. Ingham waived the indictment and was charged on a superseding information with a single count of conspiracy 1440 UNITED STATES v. Ingham entered into a plea agreement acknowledging that he was subject to a maximum statutory sentence of 120 months. A PSR was filed that made the following undisputed factual findings regarding the conspiracy: In August 2003. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0116p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgments of sentence are AFFIRMED. Have each contested his respective sentence imposed following his conviction entered upon his guilty plea to conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine base (or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is an appeal from a jury verdict in which the defendant was found guilty of two counts of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. The defendant was sentenced to 144 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.1 The firearm possession charge in count one occurred on September 17. The validity of that search and whether the defendant possessed the firearm is not at issue in this appeal. The recovery of the firearm on that day gave rise to certain statements alleged to have been made by the defendant after he was stopped which were subsequently introduced against him at trial. 2001 was an illegal Terry stop giving rise to fruit of the poisonous tree. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5307a.html">SENDRA CORP V. MAGAW JOHN W.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-2299.htm">00-2299 -- U.S. V. POMPEY -- 08/31/2001<BR></A><BR> Pompey was named in five of the counts: conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Pompey was eventually found competent to stand trial and a jury convicted him of all five counts in February 2000. Pompey raises three issues: (1) that he was not competent to stand trial. 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="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412367.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was killed by Officer Hecksel during a traffic stop. Whether a parent has such a right vis à vis her adult child is a question of first impression for this Court. Corey Rice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062348np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the conviction and sentence. Who are familiar with the factual context and the procedural history of the case. We will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. A residence in Philadelphia was burglarized on October 12. Numerous items were stolen. The driver was a woman. The two passengers were men. Sacco was shown a photo array. Bysura was arrested. The warrant was issued on November 1. He watched the two white males get out and throw a box with a safe into the dumpster.2 Sacco's description of the physical appearances of the men were not included.3 The affidavit also stated that Sacco identified Bysura in the photo array. It did not provide that Nigro was not identified even though his picture was also in the array. He then went back to the dumpster and saw that there was a safe inside. It appears from the record that Nigro is approximately 5'7 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416745.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glover raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously found that Glover's statement to federal agents was admissible because he waived his Miranda rights. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. Because the district court did not err in admitting Glover's statement and the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Because the district court erred in sentencing Glover under a mandatory guidelines scheme and the error was not harmless. Glover was not present at the time of the search. Who were present. To verify that the gun was his. Glover made statements about the gun. 2 Glover was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Glover was advised of his rights and waived them in writing. Durr testified that Glover was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6158.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner Appellant Glen Dale Hammon ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/002674P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1008.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Klibaner & Sabino was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Is itself a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/044156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anthony Donnelle Brown was found guilty by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. He asked Bankhead if he could come over to her apartment to talk and have sexual relations. He was talking on his cellular telephone with his current girlfriend. While Brown was watching television. The 911 operator called back and asked if there was an emergency. Bankhead told the operator that Brown was in her apartment with a gun and that she wanted him to leave. On the living room table. 2 Officers from the Minneapolis Police Department arrived at the apartment while Bankhead was still on the phone with the 911 operator. The operator informed the police that Bankhead was moving around the apartment and that there was a man sitting on a couch in the living room with a gun in front of him. The gun was on the table in the living room immediately in front of where Brown had been sitting when officers entered the apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At the center of this securities fraud action is Suprema Specialties. Those individuals have admitted that a number of Suprema's public statements regarding its finances and the nature of its business were untrue. The plaintiffs appellants here are two institutional investors. Several investment firms that served as underwriters in two public stock offerings through which plaintiffs claim to have acquired Suprema stock. Among the important issues presented on appeal is whether the District Court properly applied the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022941P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCoy claims he drove for a mile without incident and was unaware of the police car behind him. Assuming the police were pursuing the white truck. McCoy 2 did not have a weapon. Hollinger had fallen and was getting up. When Ouellette was within a few feet of McCoy. McCoy was never charged with any crime.2 The McCoys filed a section 1983 action against Ouellette. Ruled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1949p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also held that the defense of legal impossibility does not pertain to the attempt and conspiracy crimes with which the defendants are charged. We will affirm the court's holding regarding the applicability of the defense of legal impossibility. Will reverse its discovery order and remand for a review of other asserted defenses to the crimes in the indictment. The factual summary that follows is based entirely on the as yet unproven allegations in the July 1997 indictment. Because this is an interlocutory appeal. The record is not complete. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70C0FD92149BB69388256F40005E87CA/$file/0271841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher *Attorney General John Ashcroft is substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></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="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Imposed a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. A confidential informant told law enforcement agents that Banuelos and Delilah Ortiz were selling crack cocaine. Who was working in an undercover capacity. Who was also working <hr> in an undercover capacity. Both Banuelos and Ortiz were in the Acoma apartment when the agents arrived. Shields and Cunningham told Banuelos that they were drug dealers from Durango. It was of an inferior quality. Fearing that if they appeared too anxious it might indicate that they were undercover agents. Banuelos continued selling drugs to the agents even after Ortiz told him that she suspected Shields was an undercover agent. Banuelos told Ortiz not to worry because the agents were the informant's friends. Who was outside the Acoma apartment. The detective was not able to determine who sold Banuelos the crack cocaine. <hr> III. The jury sent a note to the judge indicating that it was at an impasse as to two of the three counts.(3) In response to the jury's note. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1689.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brett Huston are police officers for the City of Milwaukee Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2088.htm">03-2088 -- U.S. V. BANUELOS -- 08/23/2004<BR></A><BR> Told law enforcement agents that Banuelos and Delilah Ortiz were selling crack cocaine. Who was working in an undercover capacity. Who was also working in an undercover capacity. Both Banuelos and Ortiz were in the Acoma apartment when the agents arrived. Shields and Cunningham told Banuelos that they were drug dealers from Durango. It was of an inferior quality. Fearing that if they appeared too anxious it might indicate that they were undercover agents. Banuelos continued selling drugs to the agents even after Ortiz told him that she suspected Shields was an undercover agent. Banuelos told Ortiz not to worry because the agents were Kinter's friends. Who was outside the Acoma apartment. The jury sent a note to the judge indicating that it was at an impasse as to two of the three counts.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B412F0EF6D73F53D88256CFA007A6AA9/$file/0216048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellant Frederick Kaplan was a peace officer employed by the Defendant Appellee City of North Las Vegas (City). Kaplan's slow recovery was attributed to rheumatoid arthritis. The City believed Kaplan's injury was permanent. Is also a defendant. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS 4547 mary judgment after concluding that Kaplan could not show that he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6EB8E5D84A2B8E788256D110081FA66/$file/0250087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. The officers were lawfully in the room when they found Enslin. Is misplaced. Buie held that an officer must have reasonable suspicion to search previously unsearched areas of a house when the officers were present to execute an arrest warrant and they had already found and arrested the suspect. The officers were lawfully in the room when they found Enslin because they had not completed their search. The Buie Court concluded that entering into previously unsearched rooms was not de minimis. As we have described above. Ordering Enslin to show his hands was a minimal intrusion. 2. Enslin's reliance upon cases that require reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop is misplaced. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 5228 UNITED STATES v. Circuit Judge: Bobby Der Enslin appeals his criminal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.1 He contends that the district court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search and evidence obtained after he was seized unlawfully. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/301F70E0D45DED6B88256F160083158B/$file/0271841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher *Attorney General John Ashcroft is substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Campbell was on brief for appellant Cirilo Munoz. Were on brief for appellee. Their mutual drug suppliers were Yito Morales and a person known only as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052478P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Winfield was convicted in Missouri state court of multiple counts of murder. Armed criminal action and was sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on direct appeal. That motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 petition was denied. Winfield was granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. All of which have been briefed and argued. Winfield was unaware of this relationship and called her apartment numerous times between 10:00 and 11:00 pm that evening trying to reach her. He spoke with Melody and asked where Carmelita was. Winfield told Melody to have Carmelita call him when she got home. By that time Melody had learned from Arthea that Carmelita was out with Reynolds. So the two women decided to lie to Winfield and told him that she was with Arthea's mother. As he was leaving the apartment. Winfield was waiting for her. He forced her into an adjacent parking lot to talk and repeatedly asked Carmelita whether she was having a relationship with Reynolds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-3045a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Defendant Michael John son was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. s 924(c)(1). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Johnson's conviction. They did find an air shaft that was accessible through a window in his bathroom. Hanging on a nail in the air shaft was a plastic bag containing several small packets of crack cocaine and a loaded .357 revolver with an obliterated serial number. Defendant was clad only in his underwear. On the bed were the same clothes Johnson had worn when he pointed the gun at Officer Flynn. In the clothes were over thirty packets of crack cocaine and $700 in cash. Officer Flynn testified at trial that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/01-1111.htm">01-1111 -- U.S. V. MARQUEZ -- 10/26/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9795E05CFEDCA2D88256CAD005CE1F0/$file/0250087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Bobby Der Enslin appeals his criminal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.1 He contends that the district court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search and evidence obtained after he was seized unlawfully. He further contends that the indictment was fatally flawed because it failed to allege a mens rea for his felon status. We affirm because we conclude that (1) even if the person who voluntarily consented to the search did not have authority to consent. Miller2 is controlling authority in this circuit. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Enslin was truly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seven U.S. marshals were searching for a fugitive named Mickey Bass to execute an arrest warrant. They asked her if Bass was there and when she replied that he was not. There is no indication in the record that the door was locked. Enslin was in bed. Enslin's hands were concealed underneath the covers. It is possible that the marshals' guns and badges were visible at their waists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414669.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he was denied his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Florida Supreme Court's disposition of Maharaj's claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Nor was its decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. I. The basic facts and procedural history are straightforward. Maharaj was sentenced to die for one of the murder counts. His convictions and sentences were upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on direct appeal. His subsequent request for post conviction relief was denied by the state trial court. Which was. A new penalty trial was ordered. After which Maharaj was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count for which he had previously been sentenced to die. Are these. Krishna Maharaj is a British national. Who was living in South Florida in October of 1986. The state's most important trial witness was Neville Butler. Although he was never officially hired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/640383B03D8AAB3688256B6B007C09FD/$file/0099014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the district judge erred in holding that the Washington State Supreme Court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Brady v. Because we hold that the state court's decision that there was no Brady violation in 3084 Benn's case constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. The bodies were still warm and bleeding. There was a bullet hole in the couch in the living room consistent with someone having been shot while on the couch. There were also bloodstains that matched Dethlefsen's blood type on both the couch itself and on a newspaper that was on it. The medical examiner testified that Dethlefsen was shot in the chest while on the couch because only the chest wound would have allowed him to move around and end up on the floor where the police found him. There was a .45 caliber handgun on the floor between the two bodies and a baseball bat next to Dethlefsen's body. There was also blood on one of Benn's boots with spatter patterns consistent with Benn's having shot Nelson in the head while standing next to his body. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8F2AEBE9764448588256E300069B8B0/$file/0170724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We write en banc to clarify that the acceptance of a criminal defendant's guilty plea is a judicial act distinct from the acceptance of the plea agreement itself. The conditions under which the plea may be withdrawn are governed exclusively by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Where a district court accepts a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court's choice to do so here was error. As is commonly the case. Although most changes were intended to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered summary judgment for the City on the ground that the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. O is located at 599 Thames Street in Newport. The property is zoned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxMjNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9123_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0134p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Anthony Graham was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The firearm upon which this prosecution was based was found during a Terry search by an officer of the Dayton Police Department. Officers Ryan Halburnt ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515088.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One such letter was mailed to American Media. Two wrongful death suits were brought by Maureen Stevens. Alleging that they were the source of the anthrax that killed Mr. Battelle removed the state case to federal court and the two suits were consolidated for discovery purposes. The suit alleged further that the government knew it was utilizing an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="htt