 |
WATERS V. THOMAS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="855"></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-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3480.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pierre was tried and convicted of the murders in Illinois state court in 1983. Concluding they were not procedurally defaulted. Arguing that his counsel was ineffective at the pleading stage and that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. Pierre will receive a new sentencing hearing.1 For the following reasons. Pierre was involved in a brutal murder for hire scheme in 1982. Just three weeks after he was paroled from prison. Barry Wilson was dating one Jackie Gibons. This is no longer a death penalty case because there is currently no such penalty awaiting the defendant. Wilson's attempt at murder was thwarted when he fell through a window at the Gibons' home and abruptly fled. 000 was discussed). Pierre to her father (Sybil Gibons was not at home). After Benjamin was dead. Jackie told the detective that her father was out and that she would have him return the call when he came home. Pierre was waiting in the hallway and he bludgeoned Sybil Gibons to death. Pierre was to accompany Wilson to dispose of the bodies in Arkansas (or California.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI3NTQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2754-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Those defendants who are initially released subject to an order of conditions may. Be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was peaceably apprehended and charged with the murder of a federal employee. Weed and the government stipulated that Weed was insane at the time of the shooting. The district court held a commitment hearing as required by statute to determine whether Weed was entitled to release under 18 U.S.C. 4243 (2000). Both sides' experts also agreed that Weed may still have a latent mental illness or disorder that had not been triggered since the time of the crime. (2) whether Congress violates equal protection by placing a higher burden of proof for release on the class of insanity acquittees who have committed serious crimes. Who was found in a disoriented state several blocks from the shooting. Witnesses said Weed was acting very strangely at the time of his arrest. At others his behavior is erratic and his speech incomprehensible. Weed was subsequently charged with the murder of a federal employee and use of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. He was detained in a federal medical center pending trial and evaluated for competency at the request of both his attorney and the prosecution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/942064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Weekley twice petitioned for post conviction relief on various grounds in the state courts of Missouri and was turned away. His petition was denied. Weekley's jury was constitutionally constituted. Whether his mental condition was such that he was denied due process when he was put to trial. Whether his counsel was ineffective for not asserting that he was incompetent to stand trial and for not going forward with an insanity defense. Weekley abandoned his claim that his jury was unconstitutionally composed. A panel of our court affirmed the district court's grant of the writ on the ground that counsel was ineffective for not pursuing an insanity defense. Weekley was entitled to relief on his due process claim and because his counsel was ineffective for not asserting that he was incompetent to stand trial. A good deal more complex and troubling is Mr. Weekley's claim that his counsel was ineffective by persuading Mr. We think that what he means by that is that his lawyer did not properly investigate the viability of such a defense and did not advise him of the possibility of proceeding simultaneously with pleas of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></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-7.gif" ALT="761"></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-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0381p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing. Facts The following facts are taken from the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal. The apartment was otherwise exceptionally neat and clean. A stack stereo with two speakers were missing from Bradford's apartment. She was five feet. A portion of her lungs was missing. Were wound eight. Wound ten punctured the liver and was no more than four inches in depth. Showed no signs of hemorrhage and thus were inflicted after death or when the heart was not pumping sufficient blood. Six were superficial. All the wounds could have been inflicted by the same. Which was about four blocks from Bradford's house. Smith was not at home. Telling him he would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3409_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a paranoid schizophrenic plagued by delusions that society is engaged in a conspiracy to read his thoughts. After becoming convinced a state court judge was part of that conspiracy. For this he was indicted on two federal charges and at trial raised a defense under the federal insanity statute. [he] was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></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-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1442_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death in Indiana state court for the molestation and brutal murder of 10 year old Zachary Snider. The only evidence presented by the defense concerning his mental state at the time of the killing was the testimony of a psychologist who believes that mental illness is a myth. I A The underlying facts of this case are recounted in detail in the Indiana Supreme Court's decision affirming Stevens's conviction and sentence. Those facts are entitled to a presumption of correctness. They are in any event uncontested at this point. We repeat here only what is relevant to Stevens's current claims. Who was 20 years old at the time. Was convicted in Indiana state court of child molestation. He was released on probation in May 1993. Explaining in detail what had occurred and directing his brother to the bridge where the body was hidden. B After Stevens was charged with Snider's murder the State announced its intention to seek the death penalty. The case was transferred to the Tippecanoe County Superior Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilson was sentenced to death for that offense. Jacqueline Stephens was found naked. While Wilson and Jacqueline were in her bedroom. Wilson and Jacqueline returned to the bedroom where the girls were. While Jacqueline was showering. Pubic hairs and a dried white substance which appeared to be semen were observed on her body. He also was experiencing rhabdomyolysis. Wilson was charged with murder during the commission of attempted rape. Reported that Wilson was competent to stand trial. Killian also reported that Wilson was sane at the time of the offense. It is governed by the noncapital provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/95-6386.man.html">WEEKS V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Weeks v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case is before us for the second time. RELEVANT BACKGROUND<p> <p> Varnall Weeks was sentenced to death for his October 1. Weeks asserted that he was incompetent to be executed under <i>Ford v. That he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that claim. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/95-6386.man.html">WEEKS V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Weeks v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case is before us for the second time. RELEVANT BACKGROUND<p> <p> Varnall Weeks was sentenced to death for his October 1. Weeks asserted that he was incompetent to be executed under <i>Ford v. That he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that claim. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="673"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2326.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us on a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Appellant Johnnie Brown (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB91FAB524B1198F88256B830019DB03/$file/9910042.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was found not guilty of various criminal offenses only by reason of insanity. Was conditionally 4641 released with specific conditions to be monitored by the probation office. That the conditions imposed on his release were in excess of those authorized by the statute. That his release should have been unconditional. We conclude that the release conditions imposed by the court were not in excess of those authorized by the statute. That the failure of the release proceedings to comply with § 4243(f) requires that the release order be vacated and Phelps be rehospitalized until such time as release proceedings are instituted and conducted in accordance with § 4243(f).1 I. 35 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1994) (unpublished memorandum disposition) (rejecting Phelps' argument that 18 U.S.C.§ 4243 is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Foucha v. 831 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1987) (rejecting Phelps' claim that 18 U.S.C. §§ 4243 and 4247 are unconstitutionally vague and over broad). 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3243.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> HARTZ. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising an insanity defense. He was given medication to help him sleep and went to bed. She was eventually able to escape from the restroom and summon help. The local police were called and Mr. Anderson was taken into custody. He was appointed counsel. Anderson was incompetent to stand trial and ordered him confined for evaluation and treatment. He was discharged from the confinement on December 27. Anderson's first court appointed counsel was later granted leave to withdraw and a second counsel was appointed before trial. Birchard and called Detective Blood as a defense witness. <hr> The defense presented at trial was that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of aggravated sexual assault in particular. Anderson did not remove any of his clothing or otherwise expose himself and made no specific gestures or statements that he intended to have sexual relations with her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-1017.htm">02-1017 -- MCLUCKIE V. ABBOTT -- 07/30/2003<BR></A><BR>
We are presented with two questions: (1) whether McLuckie's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. (2) whether the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals denying post conviction relief under <u>Strickland</u>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. GIBSON -- 12/27/2001<BR></A><BR>
The retrospective determination that he was competent to stand trial. After finding that Bryan had previously been convicted of a violent felony and was a continuing threat to society. Bryan is entitled to relief only if he can show that the state court's resolution of his claims was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/033730P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Honeycutt was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action for the April 7. As he was being taken into custody. He told police that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052732p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anthony Stewart was found not guilty by reason of insanity for randomly stabbing a post office customer in Harrison. We will affirm. Stewart began to have problems with the law at the age of twenty when he was convicted in state court of possession of stolen property. Stewart was in a Harrison. Stewart was apprehended that same day a short distance from the post office. Stewart was initially charged in Hudson County Superior Court and detained at various facilities for over a year. He was transferred to federal custody on June 12. Stewart was temporarily committed for a mental health evaluation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b).1 Evaluations by mental health professionals concluded that Stewart was not competent to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Stewart was committed to the Attorney General's custody on January 17. The court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature 4 After approximately six months of treatment at Federal Medical Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-11105.opn.html">WRIGHT V. SECRETARY FOR THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (1/10/2002, NO. 00-11105)<BR></A><BR>
While he and his confederates in the crime were fleeing. Wright was later convicted in state court of two counts of armed robbery and one count of third degree felony murder. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the robberies and to five years on the attempted murder. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-11105.opn.html">WRIGHT V. SECRETARY FOR THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (1/10/2002, NO. 00-11105)<BR></A><BR>
While he and his confederates in the crime were fleeing. Wright was later convicted in state court of two counts of armed robbery and one count of third degree felony murder. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for the robberies and to five years on the attempted murder. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/967287.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kauffman's claim was based. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review is plenary. Kourtney Kauffman was released. Three shotguns and two rifles were reported stolen from a residence in Hellam Township. The court denied the hospital's petition. 2 Kauffman was arrested on July 24. Kauffman was examined by Dr. He was undoubtedly psychotic at that time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/95-1225.html">PARRISH V. COLORADO<BR></A><BR>
His petition challenges the constitutionality of the statute upon which his release is governed. Because that is an interpretation by which we are bound. Parrish seeks to have us declare unconstitutional Colo. Is overbroad. Will always have an untreatable antisocial personality which may make him a danger to himself or others. Parrish was charged with attempted first degree sexual assault. Parrish
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-4021.htm">02-4021 -- U.S. V. GILGERT -- 12/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
Gilgert was a part time janitor who was an out patient at the Valley Mental Health Hospital in Salt Lake City. If
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/023226P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Yockel asserts the district court2 erred in (1) not holding intent was a requirement for the intimidation element of bank robbery. (2) finding the evidence was sufficient to prove the taking of money by intimidation. Requested after the jury was impaneled and sworn. His hair was unkempt. His eyes were black as if he had been beaten. The teller was unable to find an account under any of these names. I know I have money here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></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="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-2055.html">MILES V. DORSEY<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that his plea was involuntary. He was incompetent to plea. That he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was charged in an amended criminal information in Otero County. Sister in law were charged with multiple offenses arising from their attempts to hide or destroy evidence that would have potentially inculpated Petitioner in the crimes. Confessed to Mitchell that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged. He was not mentally retarded. The evaluations indicated that Petitioner was neither legally insane nor incompetent to stand trial. Mitchell anticipated problems advancing an incompetency or insanity defense when prior evaluations had concluded Petitioner was competent. After James Miles was convicted of conspiracy and tampering with evidence and sentenced to four and one half years imprisonment. A retrial was scheduled for Monday. Mitchell recommended to his client that the plea agreement was in his best interest. Petitioner was not present. Sisters that the plea agreement was in Petitioner's best interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0223.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No certificate of appealability on this claim is issued. The appeal as to that issue is dismissed. I. The relevant facts underlying petitioner's conviction for first degree murder and related other crimes are succinctly set forth in the North Carolina Supreme Court's opinion affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal: [A]t around 8:00 a.m. on 27 February 1995. Sandra McGill was sitting in her apartment when she heard a loud explosion coming from the bar counter. Because she was blind. The shot was fired by defendant George Franklin Page. Who was pointing PAGE v. While Swaim and Newsome were proceeding to defendant's building to question the residents. Amos was at the hood of the car when defendant fired another shot that went through the patrol car's back window. Stated that his apartment was surrounded by police officers and that he thought he had shot someone. Defendant was taken into custody shortly thereafter. LEE Petitioner was. Arguing that this type of expert was better equipped than a clinical psychologist to prepare a legal defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6370.htm">98-6370 -- JONES V. GIBSON -- 02/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief: (1) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the unconstitutionally applied heinous. (2) his right to remain silent and his right to confrontation were violated. 735 (1990) (per curiam) (holding federal courts may overturn state court factual determinations only upon concluding they are not fairly supported by record).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/030A9BB8032DE2BF88256C950063649E/$file/0135053.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sandgathe was convicted in a jury trial of assault in the second degree. To have a tooth bridge removed and repaired. Petitioner was given a mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen. Bryson decided it was necessary to give petitioner another Xylocaine injection to stop his gums from bleeding. Sandgathe was concerned about the additional injection. Bryson assured him that the procedure was standard. Bryson thereupon warned that the police were on their way. He is acting weird.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR>
Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-6179.htm">97-6179 -- CASTRO V. WARD -- 03/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The court's corrected opinion is filed herewith. Castro was arrested for the armed robbery and felony murder of Rhonda Pappan in Ponca City. He was placed in the Kay County jail. Castro was convicted and sentenced to death in this case. The basic facts of the crime are the following: Mr. Castro with the Cox murder was filed in Noble County. Castro was found guilty in Kay County of the armed robbery and felony murder of Ms. Castro was arraigned on the murder and theft charges involving Ms. The statutory aggravator supporting the death sentence was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-5230.htm">97-5230 -- BROWN V. CHAMPION -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellants Ronald J. Brown was convicted in 1984 of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. That such error was not harmless. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A9B529B5319598825714C00552F1C/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Equitable Tolling
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9710.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It ruled that the jury was improperly instructed at the sentencing phase of Noland's trial as to its consideration of mitigating circumstances. The writ should have been denied and we therefore reverse in part and affirm in part. I. Noland and Susan Milton Noland were married for nine years prior to their separation on March 3. Reback was of the opinion that Noland was mentally ill and dangerous. The record does not indicate when Noland was released from the hospital. She informed Noland by letter where she and the children were living. He asked her when she was coming back to Charlotte. You will come back. You'll have to come back. Was watching television with two friends in the living room of 3 her home in Charlotte. This house was the same one that had previously been occupied by Noland and Susan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-6004a.htm">01-6004A -- ELLIS V. MULLIN -- 12/10/2002<BR></A><BR>
<strong> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-6004.htm">01-6004 -- ELLIS V. MULLIN -- 12/10/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CE0AED3FB4FBAE388256E5A00707A55/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E2C84650DADD0B888256E5A00707A47/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BADD5034DABAACE882569EE0083123F/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D71334F8521B38D882569F1005FA660/$file/9916531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was involuntary because his counsel insisted on presenting evidence of his mental condition. The court denied his Faretta request to represent himself.2 Having found that the Faretta request was untimely and not in good faith. That the plea was voluntary. The government submits that Kaczynski is foreclosed from raising the voluntariness of his plea on collateral review because he did not do so on direct appeal. Are well known and we do not repeat them here. The California Indictment was assigned to the calendar of 3 The New Jersey Indictment was transferred to the Eastern District of California under Fed. Were appointed to represent Kaczynski. Which were denied. He also avers that the purpose of the notice was to allow psychologist Julie Kriegler. Six hundred veniremen were summoned. 450 questionnaires were filled out. That he was deterred from bringing his conflict with counsel to the court's attention as counsel were in plea negotiations with the government.5 Evidently by December 17 it had become clear 4 Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3027a.html">U.S. V. RUSSELL EUGENE WESTON, JR<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="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/01-3027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: Under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause there is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/009005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042192P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Don William Davis was convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for postconviction relief in state court was denied. Jane Daniel was found dead in her home from a shot to the back of her head. Several items of jewelry and other property were missing from the home. Davis was charged in an information with capital murder. Davis was declared indigent by the state trial court and pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Arkansas law requires a trial court to suspend proceedings and order an examination when a defendant's mental disease or defect becomes or is likely to become an issue. To examine Davis and to submit a report as to whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Davis was insane then or at the time of the offense. Jenkins concluded that while there was no evidence that Davis was incompetent or psychotic. There was evidence of residual attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/99-10895.ma2.html">FORD V. HALEY (11/8/1999, NO. 99-10895)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Petitioner Pernell Ford (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-7038.htm">99-7038 -- MCGREGOR V. GIBSON -- 08/01/2000<BR></A><BR>
McGregor was convicted of murdering Virgie Plumb. She was last seen by a neighbor. McGregor was driving. <p> At 10:00 P.M. that evening. Which was rejected for insufficient funds. She was gone. McGregor was entitled to a court appointed psychiatrist. <em>See . The State charged that the murder was especially heinous. McGregor was not a . Will not be entitled to habeas relief unless the state court's adjudication of the merits of his claim
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1731.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was granted. Underlying Facts and Schultz's Murder Trial Schultz was born in 1976 in Watseka. To say that his childhood was a troubled one is an understatement. When Schultz was a young boy. Schultz spent two weeks in a psychiatric hospital and was diagnosed with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2576.opn.html">PROVENZANO V. SINGLETARY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-2576)<BR></A><BR>
The facts relevant to the crime and the evidence at trial are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. <U>See</U> <U>Provenzano v. Was denied by the state trial court. Which in Florida is filed directly with the state supreme court. <U>See</U> <U>Provenzano v. Provenzano's second or supplemental state collateral motion raising them was denied by the state trial court. Saw no need for an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Provenzano was not entitled to any relief. We will rely upon it to dispose of most of the claims Provenzano presses on appeal.</P> <P><CENTER>CLAIMS PRESSED ON APPEAL</CENTER> </P> <P> The claims that Provenzano contends the district court should have granted relief on. Or at least should have conducted an evidentiary hearing about. Are listed below. We have inserted a parenthetical reference to the number each claim has in that opinion where that number is different from the one used for it in this opinion.</P> <P> I. It is undisputed that after the trial judge stated he was inclined to grant a change of venue if one were properly requested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-2576.opn.html">PROVENZANO V. SINGLETARY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-2576)<BR></A><BR>
The facts relevant to the crime and the evidence at trial are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. <U>See</U> <U>Provenzano v. Was denied by the state trial court. Which in Florida is filed directly with the state supreme court. <U>See</U> <U>Provenzano v. Provenzano's second or supplemental state collateral motion raising them was denied by the state trial court. Saw no need for an evidentiary hearing and concluded that Provenzano was not entitled to any relief. We will rely upon it to dispose of most of the claims Provenzano presses on appeal.</P> <P><CENTER>CLAIMS PRESSED ON APPEAL</CENTER> </P> <P> The claims that Provenzano contends the district court should have granted relief on. Or at least should have conducted an evidentiary hearing about. Are listed below. We have inserted a parenthetical reference to the number each claim has in that opinion where that number is different from the one used for it in this opinion.</P> <P> I. It is undisputed that after the trial judge stated he was inclined to grant a change of venue if one were properly requested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3094a.html">USA V. HINCKLEY JR. JOHN W<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1739.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Matheney was competent to stand trial and denied his habeas petition. To wit: (1) whether Matheney was competent to stand trial in 1990. (2) whether Matheney's attorneys at his trial were ineffective because they did not demand a competency hearing prior to the trial. (3) whether the state trial court was obligated to hold a competency hearing sua sponte. It will suffice for present No. 03 1739 3 purposes to supply only a brief factual introduction to the relevant issues and refer to prior treatments of the case as necessary. The incompetency claim and the insanity defense were both premised on Matheney's unique understanding of the events of his life. Matheney was in prison at the time of the murder because he had kidnaped his children and battered his exwife. Whom he believed were having an affair. The doctors limited their inquiries into whether Matheney was sane under Indiana law at the time of his crimes. The issue of competency was not raised by defense counsel after the initial motion. 4 No. 03 1739 Competency to stand trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2C5308C349848038825713F000874AA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to an aggravated term of fourteen years for the burglary conviction. 3402 WILLIAMS v. Was shot and killed on March 12. A white male who had been seen wandering around the neighborhood just before the shooting knocked on the Bunchek's door and asked Sylvia Bunchek whether her next door neighbors were home. Bunchek told him that they were not. Wood and the Tautkuses provided the police with a description from which a composite sketch was prepared. This sketch was televised and published in local newspapers on March 13. It was seen by one of Williams's roommates. Williams rented a house that was about three minutes from the Tuatkus home with Walsh.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8E2AFA2EDD6DBA788257153007E7DCA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED by deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with the following sentence:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-6055.htm">02-6055 -- SMITH V. MULLIN -- 07/29/2004<BR></A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for the 1993 murders of his wife and stepchildren. Smith] was married to Jennifer Smith. The rest of the house was searched. The bodies of three more children were found. The bodies were determined to be those of Jennifer Smith and her four children. They were determined to have been dead for at least two to three days and up to . . . two weeks or more. <p> The afternoon of that same day. He was turned over to the Oklahoma City Police and placed under arrest. A federal court is precluded from granting habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by the state court. Unless the state proceeding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/033.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 03 3 (CA 02 2030 0 10BD) ORDER Before the court is a motion by appellee Wilson for leave to file a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc out of time. 2003 is hereby amended. We held that Wilson was precluded from raising in federal court either of his claims related to a report prepared by the Quality Care Review Board (QCRB). Because he was either procedurally barred from raising. Wilson argues that this holding was in error because the South Carolina Supreme Court's order. Authorized him to pursue both claims in post conviction relief.1 The order of the South Carolina Supreme Court stated simply that Wilson's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-3725.man.html">OATS V. SINGLETARY (5/19/1998, NO. 96-3725)<BR></A><BR>
Was killed during a robbery of the store. The cause of her death was a single bullet fired from approximately one foot away that penetrated her right eye and her brain. Donnie Williams was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase. Oats was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase and given <EM>Miranda</EM> warnings. The firearm was later discovered on the roadside near the location described by Oats.</P> <P> In his interview with the police. Ballistics tests conducted on the gun recovered from the roadside established that it was the same weapon used in both the ABC liquor store and Jeanette Dyer shootings.</P> <P> Oats was indicted on two counts for robbery and first degree murder. Oats was also charged separately in another case for the robbery and attempted murder at the ABC liquor store that occurred on December 19. Oats was examined. All of whom reported to the court and to Oats' counsel that Oats was sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-3725.man.html">OATS V. SINGLETARY (5/19/1998, NO. 96-3725)<BR></A><BR>
Was killed during a robbery of the store. The cause of her death was a single bullet fired from approximately one foot away that penetrated her right eye and her brain. Donnie Williams was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase. Oats was arrested as a suspect in the high speed chase and given <EM>Miranda</EM> warnings. The firearm was later discovered on the roadside near the location described by Oats.</P> <P> In his interview with the police. Ballistics tests conducted on the gun recovered from the roadside established that it was the same weapon used in both the ABC liquor store and Jeanette Dyer shootings.</P> <P> Oats was indicted on two counts for robbery and first degree murder. Oats was also charged separately in another case for the robbery and attempted murder at the ABC liquor store that occurred on December 19. Oats was examined. All of whom reported to the court and to Oats' counsel that Oats was sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-7139.htm">98-7139 -- JAMES V. GIBSON -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
James was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Were incarcerated in the Muskogee City/Federal Jail. Berry had snitched on them and was responsible for their arrest. While the two were playing. Brown that someone was coming. Van Woudenberg were charged with and tried together for the murder.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0121.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were adjudicated on the merits and rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court. McWee's remaining claims that his trial counsel was ineffective were adjudicated on the merits and rejected by the South Carolina post conviction review (PCR) court. We conclude that McWee is not entitled to habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) because the decisions of the South Carolina state courts were neither contrary to. Provided as follows: A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to murder must MCWEE v. A. McWee's first claim is that the trial court violated his due process rights by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-7141.wpd.html">WILLIAMSON V. WARD<BR></A><BR>
Ronald Keith Williamson was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for state post conviction relief was denied. Asserting that he was convicted and sentenced in violation of the Fifth. Ruling that both the conviction and the sentence of death were constitutionally infirm on numerous grounds. We agree with the district court that Mr Williamson was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel in two regards and that his conviction must therefore be reversed. I The underlying circumstances are as follows. Was found dead in her apartment. Found a bloody fingerprint on the wall of the bedroom in which the body was located. The only latent prints identified were those of the victim and an Ada police detective who investigated the crime. Who was a suspect by that time. Williamson was known to frequent the Club with Dennis Fritz. Fritz was also charged with first degree murder. He was tried separately.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/97-8452.opn.html">NAGEL V. OSBORNE (1/4/1999, NO. 97-8452)<BR></A><BR>
Nagel has been in a state institution since he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the murders of his grandparents in 1981 and subsequently civilly committed. Testified that Nagel did not meet the criteria for civil commitment because he was neither mentally ill nor imminently dangerous. That his acquittal was in error. No other evidence regarding Nagel's mental status was presented. Finding that although the doctors' testimony was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/97-8452.opn.html">NAGEL V. OSBORNE (1/4/1999, NO. 97-8452)<BR></A><BR>
Nagel has been in a state institution since he was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the murders of his grandparents in 1981 and subsequently civilly committed. Testified that Nagel did not meet the criteria for civil commitment because he was neither mentally ill nor imminently dangerous. That his acquittal was in error. No other evidence regarding Nagel's mental status was presented. Finding that although the doctors' testimony was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6378A55C25CF87AF8825709D0055F2DE/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The underlying factual and procedural history is chronicled in our prior opinion. Warren Summerlin was convicted of the murder of Brenna Bailey by a jury and was sentenced to death by a state judge. The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing as to whether the state trial judge was competent when he was deliberating on whether to impose the death penalty. The United States Supreme Court held that Arizona's death penalty statute violated the Sixth Amendment because the penalty of death was imposed by a judge. Whether Summerlin was deprived of his right to due process of law because the trial judge was addicted to marijuana during his trial and deliberated over his sentence while under the influence of marijuana. Because the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Because this is a pre AEDPA case. We do not review the state court's legal conclusions to determine whether they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5148.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or correct the sentence that was imposed upon him pursuant to his conviction of two counts of bank robbery and one count of carrying a (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Order we granted Ringer's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Ringer's counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense. Ringer was sentenced on May 15. That his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the possibility of an insanity defense. Ringer specifically requested that the district court hold an evidentiary hearing on the question. (1) Ringer's notice of appeal was untimely. Ringer was ordered to undergo a competency evaluation at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield. That his first hospitalization on psychiatric grounds was in 1988. There have also been times in which he has exhibited possible psychotic symptoms such as delusions of persecution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Glen Coe appeals the denial of habeas relief regarding the Tennessee state courts' determination that he is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The trial court determined that Coe was entitled to a hearing on this issue because he had satisfied a threshold showing that there existed a genuine disputed issue regarding his competency to be executed. The hearing was held from January 24 to January 28. 2000 that Coe is competent to be executed. Coe filed in federal district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Tennessee courts' determination that he is competent for execution under Ford. Further briefing and an appellate oral argument are not necessary. Wainwright This circuit has never been presented with the opportunity to examine the adequacy of a state's procedures to determine whether a death row prisoner is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from executing a prisoner who is insane. Justice Powell concluded that prisoners will be considered insane for the purposes of competency to be executed when they
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0212n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fisher was convicted in Michigan state court for assault with intent to murder. Fisher contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an insanity defense. Sitting by designation. * No. 04 1575 counsel was also ineffective. Argues in turn that the one year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition had expired before Fisher did so and that the district court should have denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Regardless of whether the performance of Fisher's trial counsel was deficient. Procedural History Fisher was charged in the Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit with first degree murder in the death of his eight year old son. Fisher was convicted of assault with intent to murder and the firearm charge. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the first degree murder charge. Fisher was sentenced to 100 to 150 years imprisonment for the seconddegree murder conviction and 80 to 150 years imprisonment for the assault conviction to be followed by a mandatory two year consecutive sentence for the firearm conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C3769C26C92A54882570E4005571E5/$file/0356412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/97-5244.htm">97-5244 -- WALKER V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 02/22/1999<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge. <p> Gary Alan Walker was convicted of first degree murder in Tulsa County. Alleging that his conviction and death sentence are constitutionally infirm in several respects. Asserting that: (1) his state court competency proceedings were unconstitutional. (2) he was denied due process and equal protection when the state refused to provide funds for neurological testing. (3) he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge refused to instruct on lesser included offenses. Which is the only one supporting his death sentence. Is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Walker's conviction are undisputed. Was discovered on the floor of his home. Walker was arrested for the crime and gave a detailed confession. Cash when he was hitchhiking and Mr. Walker stood on the front porch and knocked on the door to make sure no one was home. He was repeatedly beaten by his step father and at one point was threatened by him with a rifle. Walker was ten to twelve years old she engaged in sexual relations with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that Hill has not shown that the delay prejudiced the penalty phase of his trial first because the mitigation theory that the psychologist did present (that Hill was suffering from cocaine psychosis at the time of the murder) did not differ in material ways from the one that would have been presented with more preparation and. Because nine psychological and background assessments of Hill had already been undertaken by the time the mitigation psychologist had been hired and all of them were submitted to the jury during the sentencing hearing. Who was partially paralyzed from a stroke. Leaving Jones waiting in the car after telling her that he was stopping off to get some money from his mother although he later testified that he returned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974610.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Charles Michael Baker was found not guilty only by reason of insanity of mailing a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. At the close of a hearing at which the results of the second psychiatric report were presented. The district court concluded that Baker's condition was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-3119a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the appellant. Were on brief for the appellee. Per Curiam: Appellant Russell Eugene Weston Jr. appeals the district court's order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) to forcibly medicate Weston with antipsychotic drugs based on the Bureau's determination that the treat ment is medically appropriate and essential for Weston's safety and for the safety of others. Was charged in a six count indictment with the July 24. Who is confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner. Should medical per sonnel conclude antipsychotic injections were warranted. The order further directed:
</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/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-4.gif" ALT="481"></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="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011220P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the burglary and aggravated sexual abuse were atypical because they occurred in Petersen's own home with his wife and involved minimal force. Not the back door which was four to five feet off the ground with no steps. The Petersens' four year old son was sleeping with Calley.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="471"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1663_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Burgess was involuntarily committed to a Wisconsin state mental health facility after a jury found that he was a sexually violent person as defined in Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Person Commitment Statutes. Burgess now appeals to this court. 2 No. 05 1663 What distinguishes this case from the many habeas corpus petitions this court entertains each term is that it involves one additional sovereign Burgess is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. We conclude that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's ultimate resolution of Burgess's jurisdictional claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States. I Burgess is an enrolled member of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau). He is a legal resident of his tribal reservation land. Burgess was convicted of attempted second degree sexual assault of a child (a crime that he committed on his reservation) in the Circuit Court for Vilas County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-5065.htm">01-5065 -- BOLT V. POPPELL -- 01/28/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant Ralph Tim Bolt. Bolt was arrested and taken into police custody later in the morning on May . Bolt was subsequently charged in the District Court of Osage County. Bolt was convicted of both offenses. He was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment on each conviction with the sentences to run consecutively. (4) the sentences imposed were excessive. (2) his due process rights were violated by the admission into evidence of involuntary confessions. (3) he was temporarily insane at the time he committed the assault and incompetent at the time of trial. (5) his due process rights were violated by the hurried manner in which the state district court disposed of his post conviction application. Bolt's petition. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> Although we are required to construe Mr. Bolt claims he was temporarily insane at the time he committed the burglary and assault. Bolt claims he was incompetent to stand trial. Bolt claims his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to introduce sufficient evidence to support his alleged temporary insanity and incompetency.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0344p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams has demonstrated that his failure to timely file his objections was the result of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/992047P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Missouri inmate Jerry Dean King was convicted of first degree assault and armed criminal action and received two consecutive life sentences for shooting his brother Dennis. The issue is whether his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in failing to investigate and present evidence of King's diminished mental capacity. Concluding that King's contention is procedurally defaulted and is in any event without merit. King was living in a trailer behind his brother's home. When the brothers were together. The motion was granted. King was examined by Dr. Was based upon a psychiatric interview with King. It is my opinion. Robb stated that King reported that he was shot in the head by his cousin five to seven years earlier. King was shot in the leg while wrestling Dennis for the rifle. The trial court asked King whether he was satisfied with attorney Yankoviz's representation. King alleged that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to fully investigate whether King was competent to stand trial and aid in his defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-6301.htm">98-6301 -- ROGERS V. GIBSON -- 04/12/1999<BR></A><BR>
We address the following three issues on appeal: (1) whether Petitioner was denied access to state funded investigatory and expert assistance in violation of <u>Ake v. Our review of the state court's proceedings is quite limited. We may not grant habeas relief unless the state court's decision was: <p> (1) . . . contary to. Or <p> (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. <p> 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2302.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that plaintiff's suit was barred by her failure to comply with the 30 day limitations period set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611374.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We review whether Lynd was deprived of his right to assistance from necessary and competent experts at his competency trial and at both phases of his capital trial. We review whether Lynd was denied effective assistance of counsel because: (1) his retained counsel unreasonably advised him not to cooperate with a state mental health evaluation. I. Background The facts of the crime are described by the Georgia Supreme Court as follows: Lynd and the victim [Virginia
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR>
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="444"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR>
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0122p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnny Allen were inmates in Range
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/031348P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Benjamin Archuleta was charged with assaulting a federal official in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Archuleta was conditionally released. At which time [his] status will be subject to further review by the Court.
</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/0B0C4DE16989259F88256EE1007AB883/$file/0499003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is scheduled to be executed on August 12. I Terry Dennis was charged with first degree murder in the Nevada state district court in Washoe County on March 29. Was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Was determined to be competent to stand trial. Was able to assist in his own defense. The court found that Dennis was competent to enter a guilty plea. Evidence was presented that Dennis suffered from mental illness including bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder that he had a long history of suicide attempts. Butko was appointed as habeas counsel on April 25. Before his appeal was heard. The letter to the Nevada A detailed description of the crime is found in the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion affirming Dennis's conviction and sentence. Butko is doing all she can to delay things hoping I'll change my mind but I've been thinking this over for quite some time now and I assure you my mind's made up and I know what I'm doing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § FILED U.S. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/022091P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Eugene Blackwell was found guilty in Iowa state court of two counts of murder and one count of burglary. Loken. 1 Blackwell argued that the Iowa Court of Appeals' rejection of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/419BB519D0F0B93488257075004E51B4/$file/0355863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(5) whether Lyle's due process rights were violated when the prosecutor commented on the lack of evidence regarding abuse and the lack of experts. Both of which the prosecutor had successfully moved to exclude.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The theory of the prosecution supporting charges of murder was that these killings were motivated by greed and the brothers' desire to acquire by early inheritance their parents' considerable wealth. TERHUNE 12471 were the result of years of physical. Who was home from the East Coast for the summer. Lyle allegedly confronted Jose about the abuse while Erik was out of the house. Were turned away because the range did not allow shotguns. Having been told that the birdshot ammunition they had loaded into their new guns was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9726.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It was dismissed by the Virginia Supreme Court on March 18. Stewart was not permitted to take Jonathan from the house. Stewart was at home. One shot was fired at a range of no more than an inch or two. As Stewart was driving through Bedford County. After receiving information from the National Criminal Information Center that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/962441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His waiver of the right to present mitigating evidence were not entered into knowingly. He was transferred in and out of mental health facilities. Wilkins was living on the streets with three other teenagers. Which the record shows was primarily formulated by Wilkins. Concluded in his subsequent written report that Wilkins was competent to stand trial and that at the time of the offense. Wilkins was not suffering from a mental disease or defect within the meaning of the Missouri statute. Duchardt to have Wilkins examined a second time. He believed that Wilkins suffered from a mental disease and that his mental functioning was significantly impaired. Explaining that he interviewed Wilkins for approximately 95 minutes and believed that he was competent to stand trial. Logan's testimony was also consistent with his earlier report. He stated that Wilkins was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-6465.htm">98-6465 -- TRICE V. WARD -- 11/15/1999<BR></A><BR>
Who was 5' 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His petition was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Petitioner's case was transferred to Judge Haynes. The court found that the claims of insufficiency of the evidence and improper voir dire were not supported by evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the state court's findings of fact.1 As to the Brady claim. B. FACTS The following facts were found by the state appellate court on direct review: The victims. Were street people who camped under the bridges along the Cumberland River. Defendant was shirtless. Was a billfold similar to that carried by truck drivers. The gun was either a .32 or .38 caliber revolver. The leash was a choker chain with a leather belt. When the man got to within twenty feet he spoke identifying himself as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B1859A297BB34B488256D4F006E9488/$file/0199016.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Oscar Gates was sentenced to death for murdering Lonnie Stevenson in 1979. A crime for which Gates was later convicted. Gates's neighbors testified he was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3234.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reuben Adams was committed to the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services after a jury found him eligible for confinement pursuant to the state's Sexually Violent Person Commitments Statute. Eight years later Adams was arrested again after he engaged in repeated sexual acts with his eleven year old stepdaughter. For that offense he pleaded guilty to seconddegree sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to four years in prison. In August 1994 the State of Wisconsin filed a petition alleging that Adams was eligible for confinement pursuant to the Sexually Violent Person Commitments Statute. Chapter 980 requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject of the petition is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4MTEtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3811-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was also ordered to pay $249. Valdez was sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment. One of these allegedly incorrect factual findings was the district court's failure to accept Valdez's declaration that a coconspirator. Was the mastermind of the criminal scheme in which defendant engaged. Although we are not persuaded by Valdez's arguments. Defendant's Offense Conduct Valdez was convicted for participating in a scheme in which he defrauded long distance telephone carrier AT&T out of well 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 over $200. The agents determined that these calls were for the purpose of opening AT&T calling card accounts. On some occasions Valdez was observed holding pieces of paper with numerous names and addresses on them. B. Contentions of the Parties 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The primary issue on this appeal is the district court's refusal to adjust defendant's sentence downward on the grounds of significantly reduced mental capacity pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-2872.man.html">DAVIS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Allen Lee Davis was convicted and sentenced to death in Florida for the brutal murders of Nancy Weiler. Because that opinion is published. Except where necessary we will not repeat here what has been said there. We will first address those guilt stage issues.<p> <b>I. In this Court Davis presses only two guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel issues.<p> The first such claim Davis presses here is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an insanity defense. Krop's report was generated in 1986. Which was three and one half years after Davis was convicted. <i>See</i> 853 F.Supp. at 1543. We have held that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim. Where the record conclusively establishes that he is not entitled to relief on that claim. <i>See Spaziano v. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-2872.man.html">DAVIS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Allen Lee Davis was convicted and sentenced to death in Florida for the brutal murders of Nancy Weiler. Because that opinion is published. Except where necessary we will not repeat here what has been said there. We will first address those guilt stage issues.<p> <b>I. In this Court Davis presses only two guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel issues.<p> The first such claim Davis presses here is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an insanity defense. Krop's report was generated in 1986. Which was three and one half years after Davis was convicted. <i>See</i> 853 F.Supp. at 1543. We have held that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim. Where the record conclusively establishes that he is not entitled to relief on that claim. <i>See Spaziano v. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DDD981333B5DBE8E882571AE005839B5/$file/0436009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: In this case we must decide whether an Oregon state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his rape and sodomy convictions in 1983. Weaver was accused of being the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></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="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6236.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (2) The Honorable John L. Some 60(b) motions are in fact
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023882p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That provides that disability insurance benefits and certain other benefits are not to be paid to a person who
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96A675E2502713F688256BC80078F561/$file/0036108.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Franklin was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree and sentenced to 9 years. Arguing only that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or pursue a possible mental state defense. Respondent (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024294.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Curtis argues that the government's introduction of such testimony was prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(c) and violated his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination. We are of opinion that Fed. P. 12.2(c) did not prohibit the government from introducing psychiatric testimony to rebut Curtis's defense that he was more susceptible to entrapment than the average person due to a head injury which he had suffered in 1997. We also are of opinion that Curtis's constitutional rights were not violated because Curtis essentially waived his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination by raising a mental status defense and offering psychiatric testimony in support of that defense. Curtis was convicted of all except Count 3. Forfeiture was ordered for one automobile. Curtis concedes that he intended to introduce expert testimony in support of his defense that he suffered from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/88-8935.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="411"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313188.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bragging that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Becomes unconstitutional once an execution date is set because at that time it ceases to be in the prisoner's medical interest. The facts giving rise to Singleton's conviction were set forth in the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal: The victim. Was murdered in York's Grocery Store at Hamburg on June 1. The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming. Charles Singleton is killing me.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED733A8D3281E32F88256F6B005880D9/$file/0217150.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The most substantial issue is whether there was juror misconduct that would entitle the petitioner to a new trial. HICKMAN 16961 Facts The facts in this case are peculiar. That the facts are bizarre is significant to our analysis. The victim of the crimes was a young woman who had just moved into an apartment in San Francisco. As they were discussing her piano playing. The music hater (actually he was not a music hater he testified that the music
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-4082.htm">97-4082 -- JURASEK V. UTAH STATE HOSPITAL -- 10/14/1998<BR></A><BR>
Who was civilly committed and hospitalized for mental illness. 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Jurasek is a paranoid schizophrenic who was civilly committed to the Utah State Hospital on April 12. (4) there was no appropriate less restrictive alternative to a court order of commitment. Jurasek was examined by an independent psychiatrist prior to the commitment hearing and was represented by counsel at the hearing. The original commitment was slated to last six months. Jurasek remains confined at the Hospital pursuant to this commitment order. <p> Jurasek has been treated with psychotropic drugs from the time he was first admitted to the Hospital. He has continuously objected to the treatment and it has been administered against his will. The Hospital has had a series of policies which apply to patients who are involuntarily medicated. Patients can be forcibly injected with psychotropic drugs if the Hospital's involuntary medication hearing committee determines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/95-6386.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/95-6386.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 13 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/986089.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Todish's principal argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment because she presented sufficient facts from which a reasonable fact finder could infer that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F379EA92BD116E6D88256E5A00707C1A/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/00-15886.reh.html">BROWN V. HEAD (3/19/2002, NO. 00-15886)<BR></A><BR>
That we erred in considering as evidence that he had been faking his mental illness the fact that he had sufficient possession of his mental faculties a day or two after the crime to have changed two tires on the car he used in the crime in order to avoid detection. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/00-15886.reh.html">BROWN V. HEAD (3/19/2002, NO. 00-15886)<BR></A><BR>
That we erred in considering as evidence that he had been faking his mental illness the fact that he had sufficient possession of his mental faculties a day or two after the crime to have changed two tires on the car he used in the crime in order to avoid detection. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8CB9CF09D126AA888256A9C005AC892/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: William Charles Payton was convicted in 1982 of the rape and murder of Pamela Montgomery. He was sentenced to death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/033183P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Missouri state court sentenced Andrew Lyons (Lyons) to death after he was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. Concluding (1) Lyons was competent to stand trial. (3) any error the trial court made in admitting Lyons's confession at trial was harmless. He was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4718_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tony Lapi was charged with one count of bank robbery. 2006). 2 No. 05 4718 was found not competent to stand trial by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and was committed to the custody of the Attorney General. The location of his civil commitment was the Federal Medical Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015886.REH.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That we erred in considering as evidence that he had been faking his mental illness the fact that he had sufficient possession of his mental faculties a day or two after the crime to have changed two tires on the car he used in the crime in order to avoid detection. We extend our discussion on that point to explain further why Brown's conduct in attempting to avoid detection by changing the tires on his automobile is relevant and probative evidence concerning his mental condition. Two psychiatrists testified for the defense at the sentencing stage that Brown was completely out of touch of reality when they examined him. That irrationality was one of the primary symptoms on which they based their diagnosis. Who examined Brown after he was arrested and charged. Testified Brown was at that time:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-3094a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mortenson were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia. This release would have per mitted him to spend approximately one twelve hour period per month in the community. Hinckley presented evidence that he was suffering from a mental disease and that his criminal actions were the result of that disease. All of these requests were either denied or withdrawn. Both of which are in remission. Which is active. Who is Chief Pharmacist at the Hospital. Until Wick's staff members told her that they believed she was spending too much time with Hinckley. It imposed three restrictions on Hinckley: (1) Hinckley was prohibited from being in the general vicinity of the building in which Wick worked. (2) Hinckley could have no social relationship with Wick. He had to tell a member of his treatment team what he was going to do and where he was going to be. Wick stated that Hinckley is frequently standing in the lobby when she arrives. Patterson agreed with Hinckley's experts that Hinck ley's psychotic disorder and major depression are in remis sion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="395"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111621.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are subject to harmless error analysis and. We hold that Ake violations are amenable to harmless error analysis. We conclude that the Ake violation in this case was harmless. Facts The facts are taken verbatim from the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Hicks's direct appeal: Early in the evening of July 13. The victim's automobile was there. The victim was not. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 2 At about 8:00 pm that evening. That something was going on in the pasture. He told the deputy that the man he had called about was in the back of the other pickup. Sheriff's deputy Chuck Hudson testified that Garner and McCune
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-2219.htm">99-2219 -- PIERCE V. LUCERO -- 12/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Darci Kayleen Pierce was found guilty but mentally ill of first degree murder. <p> a state prisoner will be entitled to federal habeas corpus relief only if he can establish that a claim adjudicated by the state courts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9718.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 107 of the AEDPA is also inapplicable to this appeal. Smith's state habeas petition was finally decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court prior to that date. 1342 (4th Cir.) (concluding that § 107 is inapplicable if petitioner's state habeas petition had been finally decided prior to that state satisfying the opt in requirements). Johnson was stabbed seventeen times on and about her face. Testified that most of the Johnsons' wounds and injuries were inflicted before death and during consciousness. Smith was arrested and charged with the two murders. Johnson's skull was fractured in two separate places. Johnson's skull was lacerated in several locations. 3 Smith's confession reads. As follows: Last Saturday I was drinking all day and walking. Smith was indicted in October of 1983 on two counts of murder. Testified at the hearing that Smith was capable of assisting his counsel and competent to stand trial. That Smith was competent to stand trial. Clark's conclusion that Smith was legally insane at the time of the murders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/953936P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yoganand Premachandra was sentenced to fifty one months in prison. Premachandra now appeals the district Premachandra argues that his trial court's order denying his motion to vacate his conviction or reduce his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. counsel was ineffective. His plea was involuntary. Premachandra first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective Premachandra has two serious mental in failing to adequately investigate a potential insanity defense before urging Premachandra to plead guilty. illnesses. He was examined by mental health professionals at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield. They opined that he was competent to stand trial and not legally insane at the time of the Premachandra then pleaded guilty to the robbery offenses. Premachandra next argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because counsel incorrectly advised that he would not serve a lengthy prison term if he pleaded guilty and need not worry about an error in the stipulation of facts that accompanied the plea.2 However.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-6430.html">CASTRO V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR>
Sr. was found guilty by a jury in Kay County. Castro's direct appeal and state post conviction review of his felony murder conviction and death sentence were denied by the Oklahoma courts.1 Mr. Castro's robbery conviction was vacated on double jeopardy grounds because it was the predicate offense for his felony murder conviction. Castro's felony murder conviction and his subsequent death sentence were affirmed. Castro's petition for rehearing was denied. As were his two applications for state post conviction review. Castro's crime are undisputed. While he was rummaging through either the register or Ms. The four additional issues we leave unaddressed in this opinion are: (1) the effectiveness of Mr. Castro was only guilty of second degree murder because he never formed the requisite intent to kill Ms. Castro actively contested the State during the bifurcated penalty phase of his trial.3 The State presented evidence of two aggravating factors to justify the imposition of a death sentence: (1) the murder was especially heinous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974966.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Cintron alleges that the district court erred by refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to explore his history of mental illness prior to the plea. That he generally was satisfied with his attorney.1 The record reflects that the court complied with the dictates of Fed. Although Cintron stated that at the time of the hearing he was not being treated for any physical or mental condition. Was in some respects a `product' of his mental illness. Withdrawal of a guilty plea is not a matter of right.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0466p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
White was sentenced to death. (8) whether White's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated by the introduction at trial of statements made by White during a competency evaluation. (9) whether White was entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing in district court. Was believable as an impartial juror was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Told her that he was not going to his job at Kroger's warehouse. White was intoxicated and wanted to be left alone. He began screaming at his mother after she asked him to quiet down because she was concerned that someone might call the police due to the noise. White was afraid of a confrontation with the police because he was on probation for carrying a concealed weapon and believed that the police had harassed him on prior occasions. While White was struggling with a clip for a gun. Trooper Gross called in the car's license plate number and learned that the car was registered to White and that White did not have driving privileges due to a prior drunk driving conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/009000.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the District Court's order granting in part and denying in part Joseph Szuchon's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. We will grant Szuchon a certificate of appealability for his claims regarding the admission of certain psychiatric evidence in violation of Estelle v. We will affirm the District Court's denial of relief. A certificate of appealability will be denied on the remaining trial phase claims. That the Mills 2 claim is procedurally defaulted because Szuchon failed to exhaust his Mills claim in state court. State remedies are now foreclosed. Although we conclude that the Commonwealth may have waived this defense by failing to raise it in its answer to the habeas petition. We will address the question of whether the claim is procedurally defaulted. We conclude that the Mills claim is defaulted and barred from review on the merits given Szuchon's inability to show cause or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. One of which was that the state court improperly permitted the exclusion at voir dire of six prospective jurors who merely voiced opposition to the death penalty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516638.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gilliam was convicted of the first degree murder and sexual battery of Joyce Marlowe (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEC8BAB5CDFACE9B88256DE30083AB4F/$file/0136157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review Griffin's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Explaining for the first time that the state would seek a life sentence if a trial were to lead to Griffin's conviction. He executed a two page plea petition in which he affirmed that he understood the plea agreement and was satisfied with Smith's services. That the sentence imposed was excessive and improper. He also claimed to have received ineffective assistance of counsel under both the stated and federal constitutions. Asserting instead that Smith's representation was tainted by a conflict of interest because he had prosecuted Griffin on multiple previous occasions while serving as a district attorney.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="384"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F17DCBBD20709FA882571A2004B932A/$file/0299004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. I. Factual Background The facts of the murder of Denise Williams have been recounted in numerous prior decisions in state and federal courts. 1 and are recited only briefly here. Hoffman was employed by Richard Holmes. Holmes was arrested for distributing controlled substances. After Holmes was released on bail. ARAVE 7337 and told Williams that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7149.html">BARRETT V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR>
Argued for claimant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>Mark R. Argued for respondent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Deputy Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael J. Barrett was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) and panic disorder.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>He claims that by 2002 he suffered from flashbacks and hallucinations.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify. Both claims were denied by the Regional Office and Board of Veterans Appeals ( board ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On August 15. Barrett claimed that he was prevented from filing the notice of appeal because he had been incapacitated b
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3107.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We grant his petition to proceed ifp but deny his application for a COA. (1) This order is not binding precedent. Bethel was charged with one count of capital murder and two counts of first degree murder. One of those stipulated facts was that Mr. There was no dispute that Mr. Or that he is mentally ill. The Kansas Supreme Court concluded there is no fundamental right to an insanity defense and the state's abolition of an affirmative insanity defense therefore did not violate Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA1A9E9FF00EE458825734700517E52/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6146.htm">02-6146 -- ALLEN V. MULLIN -- 05/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0457p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether counsel for the defendant provided an adequate defense under the Sixth Amendment as incorporated in the Due Process Clause. Fred Jurek was counsel for the defendant. He was later disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. After the defendant was found guilty of murder by a jury at the guilt phase of the case. Counsel did nothing to discover what was available or introduce it in evidence. We will first set out the standards governing the assistance of defense counsel in capital cases at No. 00 3663 Hamblin v. It was only 70 years ago in the notorious but seminal Scottsboro Boys case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6062.htm">97-6062 -- SELLERS V. WARD -- 02/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death. That the offenses were committed by an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D315A8089657E87688256B8700830778/$file/0135595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Formerly referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) was a questionable diagnosis and. We are called on to decide two questions: (1) whether the Washington Supreme Court's response to a motion to reconsider its opinion was an adjudication on the merits of a newly raised Sixth Amendment claim. We hold that (1) the Washington Supreme Court adjudicated the merits of the Sixth Amendment claim and (2) the court unreasonably applied federal constitutional principles that were clearly established by the United States Supreme Court. He was incarcerated in a Washington state correctional facility and entered a sex offender treatment program there. The therapist instructed Petitioner to call her every day because she thought that he was depressed and might try to commit suicide. Petitioner was charged with first degree kidnapping. He asserted that he suffered from DID and that the alter in control of his body during the incident involving the therapist was incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of his acts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2337.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0343n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court rejected three intertwined claims: that Stewart's trial counsel was ineffective. That Stewart's guilty plea was not entered voluntarily. Who reasoned that Stewart's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim was procedurally defaulted and that his other two claims failed on the merits. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court because Stewart has not demonstrated that the state courts' failure to hold a retrospective competency hearing was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the state courts erred by concluding that his guilty plea was entered voluntarily. Stewart was discharged from a psychiatric hospital in Philadelphia. He was charged for crimes relating to these two incidents. He was confined in a correctional psychiatric facility. He was declared competent to stand trial. Stewart pleaded guilty to charges relating to the two incidents and was sentenced to a total of nineteen years in prison. Stewart was released on parole.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR>
Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 1 coming to investigate. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 2 In November of 1983. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under Johnson v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR>
Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 2 1 parking lot. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 3 2 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the Spivey enumerated twenty four claims before the district court. In particular portions of medical records which were relied on by Spivey's psychiatric expert. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-1548.htm">96-1548 -- U.S. V. BOIGEGRAIN -- 08/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
The second issue presented is whether counsel who moves for an evaluation of the defendant's competency against the defendant's wishes thereby renders ineffective assistance of counsel. We answer both questions in the negative. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1832.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Inside the bag were forty seven cut straws with the ends burned shut. It also argued that his initial complaint concerning the handling of his vestments was a spontaneous utterance. The court found as a matter of fact that the appellant 4 had neither invoked his rights nor requested an attorney while the search was ongoing. The details of which are not relevant here. His main thesis is that he exercised his prerogative to remain silent and demanded an attorney. Is not subject to further police interrogation until counsel has been made available to him).1 We find no error. Such calls are grist for the district court's mill. Any such argument is. If we are to remain faithful to the jurisprudence of clear error. He also explained that so large a quantity of crack was consistent with distribution as opposed to personal use. Though the detective's special brand of valet service was heavy handed (both literally and figuratively). There is no basis on the present record for suppression of the appellant's retort. 7 the appellant manifested none of these symptoms.3 The appellant labors to convince us that this testimony should not have been admitted for two reasons: first.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIyMjMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2223-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants are currently serving their sentences. Is punishable as a principal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-6646.man.html">WRIGHT V. HOPPER (3/10/1999, NO. 97-6646)<BR></A><BR>
Wright was convicted and sentenced to death for the December 1. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P>A. <EM>Facts</EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct review of Wright's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> The State presented evidence that around 10:30 on the morning of December 1. It was discovered that Mr. and Mrs. The money was missing from the cash register. Several watches were also missing from the store. Green was not wearing the Seiko watch he had been wearing earlier that morning. Lambert admitted that she had one child by the defendant but denied making the statement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-6646.man.html">WRIGHT V. HOPPER (3/10/1999, NO. 97-6646)<BR></A><BR>
Wright was convicted and sentenced to death for the December 1. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P>A. <EM>Facts</EM></P> <P> The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct review of Wright's conviction and sentence.</P> <P> The State presented evidence that around 10:30 on the morning of December 1. It was discovered that Mr. and Mrs. The money was missing from the cash register. Several watches were also missing from the store. Green was not wearing the Seiko watch he had been wearing earlier that morning. Lambert admitted that she had one child by the defendant but denied making the statement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-3.gif" ALT="353"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turrentine was convicted in the Oklahoma courts on four counts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under the custody of Warden Mike Mullin. Background The facts as found by the state court are. The facts of this case are both sad and horrific. Richardson was having an affair with two other men. Knew of these affairs because she was apparently a friend and confidant of Ms. Stevenson were cheating him out of money. Told her that he was at Ms. Richardson's house and that things were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7B7683BC91E172488256A790000907E/$file/0035640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Mark Steven Van Buskirk was convicted on his plea of guilty of murdering Linda Newman on March 15. We affirm. 8201 The petitioner's principal argument on appeal is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel throughout his state trial and post conviction proceedings because none of his lawyers sufficiently investigated his mental health history and thereby denied him an insanity defense. These claims were unrelated to trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate petitioner's mental condition. Have been abandoned. The pending claims are therefore subject to the strict limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). From
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C246AB05D481A8688256E5A00707CE0/$file/0035640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1) Slip op. at 8205. Lines 4148 delete: 13611 The first half of the question is whether the Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984) standard for testing the adequacy of representation is trumped by the actual innocence claim propped up by the newly discovered expert testimony Replace with: The first half of the question is whether the expert testimony provided by Van Buskirk is newly discovered evidence sufficiently probative of actual innocence to allow him to pass through the Schlup actual innocence gateway in order to have his substantive Strickland v. Beginning with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1927.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was charged in 1990 with two disciplinary offenses. Named as defendants were the prison superintendent and other correctional officials. 1990 in which plaintiff is alleged to have destroyed a light fixture. Cabino was directed to remove plaintiff from a security cell 1. The factual allegations are drawn from plaintiff's verified complaints and the exhibits attached thereto (which consist of the records of the disciplinary hearings). Such exhibits are considered part of the complaint. Plaintiff was charged with four code offenses under 103 C.M.R. 430.24 (1987). Which was held on June 28. An inmate is to be served with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3BD58DE2B65159888256E5A00707BBE/$file/0035640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Mark Steven Van Buskirk was convicted on his plea of guilty of murdering Linda Newman on March 15. We affirm. 8201 The petitioner's principal argument on appeal is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel throughout his state trial and post conviction proceedings because none of his lawyers sufficiently investigated his mental health history and thereby denied him an insanity defense. These claims were unrelated to trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate petitioner's mental condition. Have been abandoned. The pending claims are therefore subject to the strict limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). From
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1EE1354B653B7FE888256AD1005C5175/$file/0035640.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1) Slip op. at 8205. Lines 4148 delete: 13611 The first half of the question is whether the Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984) standard for testing the adequacy of representation is trumped by the actual innocence claim propped up by the newly discovered expert testimony Replace with: The first half of the question is whether the expert testimony provided by Van Buskirk is newly discovered evidence sufficiently probative of actual innocence to allow him to pass through the Schlup actual innocence gateway in order to have his substantive Strickland v. Beginning with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-3190.html">UHLRIG V. HARDER<BR></A><BR>
The state is not a party to this appeal. terminate a special unit in a mental hospital that was reserved for the criminally insane. Plaintiff claims that Defendants are liable under 1983 for violating Uhlrig's substantive due process rights by recklessly creating the danger that led to her death. Because the evidence submitted therein was not necessary to support the district court's decision. One of the patients at Topeka State Hospital was Waddell. Waddell was initially placed in the Larned State Security Hospital. He was transferred to the Topeka State Hospital where he was placed in the Adult Forensic Ward (referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6354.htm">99-6354 -- RICE V. OFFICE OF SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE -- 08/14/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="345"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0232p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
There is no question about Dickerson's guilt. He was at the borderline of retardation that would have given the three judge panel strong reasons for reducing the penalty from death to life imprisonment. This theory is flatly contradicted by the holdings of a series of Supreme Court cases and Sixth Circuit cases. We will first set forth the standard of review under AEDPA. We will next discuss this ineffective assistance of counsel claim as the basis for our granting of habeas relief requiring a new trial at the sentencing phase of the case. We will then focus on other claims that do not justify the grant of relief. The statute limits the grant of federal habeas relief to cases in which a petitioner's state court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="345"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/043160P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted as party appellee. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief. Several drug dealers were arrested in Cainsville. A drug dealer who was not arrested. Middleton told another individual there were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="343"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/00-6292.htm">00-6292 -- DUCKETT V. MULLIN -- 09/04/2002<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that Duckett is not entitled to habeas relief on any of these claims. John Howard was found dead in his apartment in Oklahoma City. His hands and feet were bound with a wire hanger. There were blood stains and spatters throughout the apartment. Howard's keys and car were missing. Howard picked up Duckett an escapee from prison who had been convicted of robbery by force while Duckett was hitchhiking on an interstate in Oklahoma City. Duckett was arrested in Clear Creek. Howard was on his feet and breathing. Noted that <p> [the victim's] ankle was broken and he had been struck at <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2241.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court ordered that the defendant be committed for a custodial examination not to exceed 45 days to determine whether he was in fact suffering from a claimed mental disease or defect during the commission of 2 No. 03 2241 his crimes. BACKGROUND Rinaldi is an orthodontist with offices in Springfield and Edwardsville. His clients included wards of the state of Illinois who were under the protection of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Individuals who were receiving Medicaid assistance from the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA). Rinaldi was issued a grand jury subpoena demanding the production of records related to his orthodontics practice. The defendant refused to produce the records and the district court conducted a hearing to determine if Rinaldi's refusal to reply was contemptuous. The government presented evidence to establish that the defendant removed records from his Springfield office after being served with the subpoena and was later seen hiding them near a dumpster outside of a McDonald's restaurant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="340"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0288p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Anthony Lee Hills was arrested and charged with burglary. Hills was forcibly administered an antipsychotic drug as authorized by the state court. The charges against him were ultimately dropped. Hills was arrested and charged with first degree burglary under Kentucky law. A state trial court ordered that Hills undergo a psychiatric examination at the KCPC to determine (1) whether he was competent to stand trial pursuant to the standard set forth in Ky. Hills was examined at the KCPC by Dr. The report concluded that Hills suffered from the delusion that God revealed to him in a dream that the burglary victim was his soulmate and that her child was his biological son. That further inpatient assessment was necessary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3113.htm">00-3113 -- JOHNSON V. MCKUNE -- 04/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Noble Leroy Johnson was convicted in the district court of Butler County. The District Court found the <em>Sandstrom</em> issue not to have been defaulted or waived because <em>Sandstrom</em> was not decided until after Johnson's conviction was final and because he had raised the issue in his first motion and appealed its denial to the highest state court. <em>Johnson v. The court held that the ruling in <em>Sandstrom</em> was not retroactively applicable on collateral review under <em>Teague v. Thomas and Darlene Woodyard were murdered in El Dorado. The Woodyards were friends of Noble Leroy Johnson and his wife Linda. The bodies were discovered three days later when the Woodyards' landlady entered the house. Her husband told her he was going to go back and kill them. A witness said he had seen Noble Johnson crouching by the river behind the Woodyards' house the day before the bodies were discovered. Johnson said that because the doors were locked from the inside. Johnson said he was angry at this.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="337"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/961891U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Louis committed him to Fulton State Hospital (Fulton)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21927B11E3B07C88825717F0076B726/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4174.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A court must find that important governmental interests are at stake.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1141.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Antonio Farrell was convicted after a jury trial in Colorado state court of eleven offenses arising out of the November 1996 abduction and murder of Barbara Castor and subsequent burglaries.(1) He received a mandatory life sentence and additional consecutive sentences totaling fifty six years. Farrell's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him and that the error was not harmless. Blankenship's statement was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0330p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bowling was convicted in state court of murdering Tina and Eddie Earley and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by Kentucky courts on direct appeal and in post conviction proceedings. He contends that he was denied proper jury instructions. Given a sentence that was constitutionally disproportionate. Eddie and Tina Earley were shot to death in their automobile in a parking lot outside a Lexington dry cleaning establishment. Parker No. 01 5832 year old son Christopher was also shot. The police determined that the Earleys' car must have been hit by a 1981 light blue Chevrolet Malibu. They also determined that a 1981 Malibu was registered in the county to Bowling. They pursued several theories of who could have murdered the Earleys. Were worried because they had not seen Bowling. Who was affectionately known as T.C. Was not there. Bowling was represented at trial by three attorneys: Baldani. The court's stated goal in voir dire was to qualify forty four of the ninety nine pooled jurors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312676ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Glenn Holladay is a state prisoner scheduled to be executed at 6:01 p.m. on May 29. He alleges that he is mentally retarded. That under Atkins his execution is flatly forbidden under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Arguing that he is not mentally retarded and that in any event this claim was procedurally defaulted. Holladay was convicted on June 26. The trial court concluded that these mitigating circumstances were outweighed by the two statutory aggravating circumstances in the case. That the capital offense was committed while petitioner was under a sentence of imprisonment and that Holladay previously had been convicted of felonies involving the threat or use of personal violence. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. Although the Rule 20 court found that most of his claims were procedurally barred as having not been raised at trial or on direct appeal. The Rule 20 court's denial of post conviction relief was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-1535.htm">99-1535 -- NEIBERGER V. HAWKINS -- 03/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
For the reasons assigned we affirm. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs are patients committed to the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="330"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9813.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted by a jury in Virginia state court of murdering Floyd Jenkins. He was given two death sentences. (2) that he was denied due process by the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel in failing to obtain and make available to his expert witness his complete Department of Corrections medical records about his mental health. (3) that he was denied a competent mental health expert and the right to an adequate mental health evaluation at trial. Are as follows: There is virtually no conflict in the facts relating to the commission of these crimes. The day the crimes were committed. The defendant's mother and grandmother drove the defendant and Frame away from the restaurant and to the vicinity of the home where defendant was residing on Route 617 in Warren County. The home was owned by Elizabeth Morris. Brinklow was sitting on a couch in the living room. Who was not present. The defendant walked to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="328"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-2319.htm">99-2319 -- U.S. V. BRANNON -- 05/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is. Brannon's case appears moot in that he is no longer in the custody of a federal mental health facility. There is no further relief we can afford him. There is precedent to suggest that his situation is justiciable. We held that review of section 4247(b) commitment orders that have been terminated may present situations
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="326"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-2172.htm">98-2172 -- GUZMAN V. WILLIAMS -- 06/28/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This case is before the court on Michael Anthony Guzman's application for a certificate of appealability (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08EA6BC1023C3D5688256B6500594E78/$file/0099013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It might have made the difference between life and death. The penalty phase jury was deprived of this critical explanation in determining Caro's culpability for his crime. This is the second time that this case has come before this panel's consideration. The house in which he was raised was surrounded by agricultural fields and did not protect the family from the crop dusters that overflew those fields. Was contaminated by pesticides. He was regularly exposed to organophosphates. He was poisoned by a number of toxic chemicals at the plant. Caro also sustained several head injuries as a child: he was born with a three inch lump on his head due to the use of forceps during his difficult delivery. He was hit by a car later that year. Caro was convicted for the murders of Mary Booher and Mark Hatcher. Teenage cousins who disappeared while on a bicycle ride and were killed by a closerange gunshot to the head. Caro was also convicted of the assaults of Rick Donner and Jack Lucchesi. He would have found Caro to suffer from brain damage due to his exposure to neurotoxicants.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted a certificate of appealability on Jennings's claim that his sentence was rendered unconstitutional by the application of two invalid aggravating factors that the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-15886.opn.html">BROWN V. HEAD (11/15/2001, NO. 00-15886)<BR></A><BR>
Suffocated her by forcing her panties so far down her throat that they were not discovered until the autopsy. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513426.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Brehm was indicted on two counts: (1) importation of heroin. Brehm's competence to stand trial was also assessed by way of an interview designed to evaluate an individual's ability to articulate understanding of the nature and consequences of criminal charges and court proceedings. He indicated [he] was not sure how he planned to plead in relation to the current case and that he was going to talk with his attorney about this issue. Though he would have to think about it. Brehm was not entirely sure what a plea bargain was. This issue was discussed with him and he was able to describe it as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-15886.opn.html">BROWN V. HEAD (11/15/2001, NO. 00-15886)<BR></A><BR>
Suffocated her by forcing her panties so far down her throat that they were not discovered until the autopsy. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="321"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/963609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was 22. Were drinking and driving around Doniphan. All of the gas stations in Doniphan were closed. Once Allen was naked. Was too frightened. Seeing Allen was still alive. Lingar and Smith were charged with first degree murder. Smith later pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to ten years in prison. A gun expert established the bullets found in Allen were fired from a Winchester .22 and could have been fired from Lingar's rifle. A blood expert testified blood stains in Lingar's car could have come from Allen. Who testified Lingar was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/96-2278.htm">96-2278 -- K.L. V. VALDEZ -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR>
Sixteen mentally or developmentally disabled children who are or were in the custody of the state of New Mexico. Brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that defendants have failed to provide protections and therapeutic services required by federal statutes and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprised of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maynard is currently serving a life sentence in Oklahoma state prison arising from a crime that occurred in 1988. He was charged with shooting with intent to kill. An <hr> Oklahoma jury determined he was competent to stand trial. Maynard was convicted of the charged crime. His conviction was later affirmed on appeal. Maynard challenges the decision on two grounds: (1) he was not competent to stand trial. Maynard shot James Cass while Maynard was sitting in his car outside a lounge in Pawhuska. Maynard was charged in Osage County. He was committed to the care of an Oklahoma state hospital. The Osage (1) This charge was subsequently amended to shooting with intent to kill after two or more felonies. <hr> County court stayed proceedings in its case and directed the hospital to continue monitoring Maynard's condition. Hospital officials concluded Maynard's condition had improved to the point he was competent to stand trial. A second competency trial in Delaware County was held. Maynard was found competent to stand trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015886.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suffocated her by forcing her panties so far down her throat that they were not discovered until the autopsy. She was the third woman Brown had attacked. The other two were fortunate enough to have escaped with their lives. Brown was charged with capital murder. The trial of the case was delayed for six years because of concerns about Brown's mental competency. That conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Georgia Supreme Court. State collateral relief was denied. Brown was more successful in seeking federal habeas relief. After conducting proceedings to ensure that Brown was competent. Was overwhelming. State collateral relief was denied as well. Brown sought federal habeas review which was denied in November 2000. This is the appeal from that denial. We hold that even assuming that Brown's trial counsel should have discovered and used certain impeachment evidence to attack the testimony of these witnesses. The state habeas Brown's claim that execution in the electric chair is cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution is moot in light of Dawson v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3988_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Laxton was involuntarily committed to a secure mental health facility after a jury found that he was a sexually violent person as defined in the Wisconsin Sexually Violent Person Commitment Statute. We conclude that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 2 No. 04 3988 adjudication of Laxton's due process claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and therefore affirm the district court's denial of the writ. Laxton was arrested while peeping into the window of a room occupied by two young girls. Petitioner was on parole after serving part of an eleven year sentence for abducting and sexually assaulting two twelve year old girls. Laxton's parole was revoked. He was convicted of disorderly conduct. Who is dangerous because he or she suffers from a mental disorder that makes it substantially probable that the person will engage in acts of sexual violence. Wisconsin affords persons who are the subject of a commitment petition the right to a trial as well as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="313"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-6442.htm">00-6442 -- KNIGHTON V. MULLIN -- 06/14/2002<BR></A><BR>
3) trial counsel's representation at sentencing was constitutionally ineffective. Accompanying the forty eight year old Knighton was his twenty year old girlfriend. Was a continuing threat to society. Knighton will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971139P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jessie Wise was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in a Missouri state court. The facts of the case are detailed in that court's opinion. Are correct. Following which he was convicted of first degree murder. Now he argues that the trial court was wrong to grant him his wish for self representation in the guilt phase of his trial. Even applying the standard of review that was the law before the act. Yet is put to trial without the assistance of counsel. 422 U.S. at 818 (holding that the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney is part of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0324p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was on probation for state charges of sale of cocaine under 0.5 grams. His state probation terms were subsequently revoked on various dates in 2001. He was ordered to serve a series of prison terms expiring in August of 2010. Defendant was arrested as a result of the indictment and. Was interviewed by FBI Special Agent Richard Poff and Agent Tim Lane of the Tennessee 17th Judicial District Drug Task Force. Whether he was insane at the time of the offenses charged. Whether there were any factors that shed light on the voluntariness of any statement against interest given by Defendant. Whether there were mental conditions that might mitigate Defendant's culpability related to trial or sentencing issues. Defendant was evaluated by Dr. His father was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="307"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3104.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When asked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-5186.htm">99-5186 -- WALKER V. GIBSON -- 10/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-8973.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BANKSTON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. A convicted defendant is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014531.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BROADDUS Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The issue presented is whether the District Court plainly erred by not holding a second competency hearing prior to sentencing. The District Court's acceptance of Broaddus' guilty plea is affirmed. Defendant Bobby Lee Broaddus was indicted on five separate counts of (1) bank robbery. Broaddus was taking antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. Thorsen was appointed to replace James Gronquist. Who was previously appointed on November 28. The court is required to forgive him as well. Thorsen was appointed in his place. Which was granted by the District Court. Broaddus' competency was evaluated at the Federal Correction Institute in Milan. These episodes diminished quickly and were not problematic probably because Broaddus was treated at the Federal Corrections Institute with antipsychotic medication. He is able to understand the processes of the court (and ask his attorney for necessary clarifications). In response to Magistrate Judge Horn's questions Broaddus acknowledged that (1) he was not under any influence of alcohol.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5A1535FB482F685E88256F930058B6D7/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 5831 insert the following language at the end of the first paragraph: We do not hold that humanizing. WOODFORD The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0313.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richard Tipton were convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for an array of criminal activity. We are now presented with four separate appeals. Which we have consolidated. Because we are unable to improve on that summary. It is set forth in haec verba: Recounted in summary form and in the light most favorable to the Government. Cory Johnson were principal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tiffany Skiba was stabbed to death on November 8. That recommendation was adopted by the trial judge. GRANT Frazier a conditional writ of habeas corpus that will result in the vacation of his death sentence unless the state of Ohio No. 01 3122 Frazier v. Bednarski discovered that Skiba was pregnant. Both women believed that Skiba's pregnancy was the result of sexual abuse by Frazier. Frazier was indicted in state court on two counts of rape and two counts involving other sex crimes. Dates for the blood test and the trial were then set by the state criminal court. Skiba was terrified of Frazier. She was visibly disturbed any time that she was in his presence. Skiba confided in one friend her fear that Frazier was going to kill her. His dog was barking and looking excitedly at the back door. Robert Skiba was met with the ghastly sight of his granddaughter's corpse lying in bed. The knife was part of a set belonging to her grandparents. There was blood on the knife. Although it was normally kept closed. The door leading from the basement into the rest of the house was open.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-8973.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BANKSTON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. A convicted defendant is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9F548C4220E69988256E8C005AC501/$file/0199011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The evidence of Allen's guilt for the crimes of conviction is overwhelming. Is that Allen's representation at the penalty phase of his trial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Trial counsel admits he did nothing to prepare for the penalty phase until after the guilty verdicts were rendered. In what little time was available. There is a reasonable probability that the result of Allen's penalty phase would have been a sentence other than death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4199.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. R. 32.1. <hr> Defendant and appellant Benjamin Archuleta appeals an order determining that the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication is necessary to render him competent to stand trial. Archuleta was charged with threatening the life of a federal district court judge in Utah. He was sent to a facility in Springfield. Archuleta was found competent to stand trial while on medication. Archuleta was accordingly committed to a hospital. Archuleta was subsequently released from the hospital with specific conditions of release. Archuleta is a restricted person who is not permitted to possess or attempt to possess a firearm. The court appointed forensic psychiatrist concluded that Archuleta was not competent to stand trial. Was unable to determine his mental state at the time of the offense. A magistrate judge held a competency hearing in March 2006 and determined that Archuleta was not competent to stand trial and ordered that he be remanded to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for restoration of competency.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011862P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
D.D.S. is charged with health care fraud. Sell was charged in a federal criminal complaint with making false representations in connection with payments for health care services in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035(a)(2). The district court held that Sell was competent to stand trial. Which was accepted without objection. Stated that Sell was currently competent to stand trial but that there was a possibility that he would develop a psychotic episode in the future. An indictment was returned against Sell and his wife. Sell was released on bond. A warrant was issued The Honorable Donald J. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 Sell has a history of mental illness. 2 for Sell's arrest and he was brought before a magistrate judge for an initial appearance. Sell's behavior at this appearance was out of control. A bond revocation hearing was held. The court received evidence that Sell's mental condition was deteriorating. Sell was not sleeping at night because he expected the FBI to barge into his house.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A32D0DBFC890578788257042008169C7/$file/0415477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2971.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indiana was robbed twice in 1978. The attendant was shot and killed. Larry Danks told police he was responsible for both attacks. Was charged initially only with the May 19 robbery and murder. Eventually he was also charged with and pleaded guilty to the May 11 murder. 2 No. 02 2971 Danks sought post conviction relief arguing that Indiana violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to a speedy trial for the May 11 murder by waiting nearly 6½ years to charge him. Later told police that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This court concludes his claim is. Because this court does not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the district courts refusing to dismiss indictments on speedy trial grounds. It is necessary to set out the history of Mr. deShazer's pretrial confinement. Mr. deShazer was charged in Wyoming state court with attempted kidnapping. Mr. deShazer was indicted in federal district court on one count of interstate stalking. Proceedings on the federal charges were deferred pending a state court trial on the state charges. Mr. deShazer was found guilty on the state charges in May 2000. Mr. deShazer was diagnosed with delusional and depressive disorders. Mr. deShazer was evaluated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester. Federal Medical Center staff agreed with the conclusion of the Wyoming State Hospital that Mr. deShazer was currently competent to stand trial. Mr. deShazer was returned to Wyoming state custody on November 6. After his state sentencing proceedings were complete. Mr. deShazer was again taken into federal custody.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="291"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0227p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was denied. Bell Page 2 We have now heard Cone's appeal three times because the United States Supreme Court has twice reversed our decisions granting relief. We will affirm the district court's original judgment denying Cone's petition. The details of Cone's brutal crimes are not material to the issues we address in this appeal. They are fully set forth in Cone v. The details of this case's procedural history are material to the issues before us on this appeal and we recount them now. The jury found four aggravating factors:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/001130.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He ar gues that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated by the introduction at trial of highly pr ejudicial evidence having little probative value and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately prepare for or respond to testimony by the prosecution's psychiatric expert. Who stated that Keller might have suffered from a condition called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0039p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richey was arrested. Because constitutional errors have undermined our confidence in the reliability of Richey's conviction and sentence. Who was elsewhere at the time. Was alone in the apartment. He was interviewed by the police chief. Richey was arrested for arson and gave a tape recorded interview to the police. Who were joined by Cryer and a prosecutor. Although acknowledging that he was intoxicated and therefore did not remember much of what happened early in the day on June 30. Because gasoline and paint thinner were stored in an unlocked greenhouse across the street from the apartment building. The owner of the greenhouse was unable to determine whether any gasoline or paint thinner was missing. He eventually withdrew his insanity plea and was adjudged competent to stand trial. The heart of the indictment against Richey was the charge of aggravated felony murder. An aggravated felony murderer must have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/97-3020.wpd.html">WILKINS V. CALLAHAN<BR></A><BR>
The functions of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner of Social Security. Is substituted for Donna E. Claimant pled guilty to and was convicted on one felony count of forgery pursuant to Kan. Claimant was transferred to Larned in May of 1992. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant's motion for oral argument is denied. same month. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 402(x)(1).(3) Claimant was discharged from Larned in November of 1993. His Social Security disability benefits were reinstated upon his release. He challenged the agency's decision to deny him benefits during the eighteen month period he was at Larned. Noting that the Veteran's Administration (VA) had not suspended payment of his veteran's benefits while he was at Larned. The ALJ concluded that 1) claimant's commitment to Larned was the same as confinement under 402(x). 2) this interpretation of 402(x) was not unreasonable or contrary to Congressional intent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="286"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-3020.htm">97-3020 -- WILKINS V. CALLAHAN -- 10/23/1997<BR></A><BR>
Claimant pled guilty to and was convicted on one felony count of forgery pursuant to Kan. Claimant was transferred to Larned in May of 1992. 402(x)(1).<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001127.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Decedent Robert Brown was taken into custody pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by Nancy Svec. The warrant was issued because Brown had failed a random urinalysis drug test. Had admitted during a telephone conversation with Svec that he was taking 8 10 pills a day and had attempted suicide the week prior by overdosing on unspecified pills. Svec testified at trial that she informed Ogden that Brown
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Kentucky resident who was stabbed to death at the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/961031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Boliek was sharing a home in Kansas City. Who was *The Hon. The petitioner discovered that the police were looking for Jody Harless. He testified that he thought that his gun was unloaded As for the second and that he pulled the trigger merely to frighten her. Which is on Boliek's back. Of a smoking shotgun with the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/994063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While he was an involuntary patient at Fulton State Hospital in Fulton. Her case proceeded to trial and judgment in her favor only against the defendants who are here the appellants. The claim tried was that these defendants all security aides at the hospital used constitutionally excessive force during the takedown and restraint that resulted in Bobby Andrews's death. I. The state of Missouri committed Bobby Andrews to Fulton State Hospital in 1983 after he was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Security aide Raymond Baker was distributing cigarettes in the ward where Bobby Andrews resided. Once he was on the floor. Various code team members were in a position to compress Andrews's neck and chest and thus impede his ability to breathe.1 Paul Harper. A large man who was difficult to subdue. Whether one of the security aides applied a choke hold was a disputed question of fact. His lips were blue. Andrews's theory of the case was that the security aides used a choke hold or otherwise compressed Bobby Andrews's airway during the takedown.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A44BAFB1546008588256E5A00707ADD/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="276"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1FB3A0798C5F718488256A2900575A67/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="275"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-7038.htm">99-7038 -- MCGREGOR V. GIBSON -- 04/11/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="275"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/043154P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
T. Mark Kraft alleges that he was repeatedly sexually abused by his teacher. While Kraft was a junior high student at St. Concluding that Kraft's lawsuit was barred by Nebraska's statute of limitation. When Kraft was between the ages of 12 and 15 years old. The last act of abuse may have occurred as late as 1980. His estate is a named defendant. Was sexually abusing children. 22 1 abuse at the hands of Meyer out of concern for their grandchildren who then attended the school. Stains advised Kraft that there was a strong possibility that the sexual abuse he had suffered as a child was contributing to his current problems. In an attempt to have Meyer removed from his position at the school. The letter states that Kraft
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sowell's counsel was confident that one of the three judges on the panel would refuse to recommend death. Sowell's direct and collateral appeals through the Ohio courts were unsuccessful. Finding that Sowell's jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent. That his counsel was ineffective. We reverse the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to Sowell because he has not demonstrated that his jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent or that his counsel was ineffective. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As the facts that underlie Sowell's death penalty are not in controversy. [Sowell] was the resident manager of the building and became acquainted with Graham. [Sowell] was a guest in Graham's apartment. Also present were Donna Edwards (Edwards). There was conflicting testimony concerning the events that transpired thereafter. It is not disputed that [Sowell] eventually lost consciousness. Billups was in the company of Edwards and the trio passed in the doorway of a store but did not acknowledge one another.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7581BA34AFFC45D288256E6F007228B0/$file/0199022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stankewitz is on death row in California. In his claim that his counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present substantial mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of Stankewitz's trial. Who is of Native American heritage. Was born into a life of abuse and deprivation. He says he was physically and sexually abused. We conclude that counsel's failure to try to give the jury this kind of information that might have humanized Stankewitz. Appears to have fallen below constitutionally acceptable professional standards. He was headed for Fresno. In his company were his mother. The officers contacted Sacramento police but were unable to determine whether the car had been stolen. They were allowed to leave. The vehicle was impounded. The bus depot was not open when they arrived. Greybeal stated that none of this would have happened if she had had her dog with her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53E618D1FC47E52688256DCE0076B7E9/$file/0235622.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was placed in solitary confinement in a bare strip cell. We reverse because we conclude that admission of hearsay testimony was prejudicial. He testified that his destructive behavior was caused by the fact that a correctional officer spit in his food. Mahone was removed from confinement in the strip cell on February 12. The motion for a new trial was denied. Mahone argues that this error was prejudicial because it undermined his credibility as a witness and cast doubt on his claims of injury. Plaintiffs must also show the error was prejudicial. Mahone was called as a witness to testify regarding the conditions of his confinement in the strip cell and the psychological harm he suffered as a result. The temperature in the cell was approximately 50 to 55 degrees. His bed was a concrete slab. He was never furnished a mattress. Mahone testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006352.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. West Bey also claims that he is entitled to relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his original attorney failed to move for a competency hearing prior to entry of his guilty plea and informed the court that West Bey was competent to plead guilty. The record is not sufficiently developed to evaluate this claim. The record is devoid of specific evidence of his attorney's investigation into his client's condition at the plea hearing. We are similarly unable to determine from the present record whether West Bey suffered prejudice from this alleged deficient representation. He was questioned only in a general manner regarding how he felt. There was no further examination into how recently his medications had been changed. There was no testimony about the effects the combination of drugs prescribed for West Bey would have upon his ability to reason and to understand the nature of the proceedings. 564 (4th Cir. 1999) (vacating and remanding a guilty plea for further factfinding on the issue of whether a plea was knowing and voluntary after a defendant revealed that he was taking two psychiatric drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-3122.htm">02-3122 -- ANDERSON V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF KANSAS -- 09/03/2003<BR></A><BR>
Anderson was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. Arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare. Concluding that federal court review of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim was barred due to his prior procedural default in Kansas state court. Asserting that Kansas' procedural rule is inadequate to bar federal habeas review and that he was not allowed to develop facts needed to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Kansas state court. <p> In a previous order. Anderson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not procedurally barred because there was no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0312n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Grant was gathering the money. Jackson was taken into custody. Was apprehended as he attempted to hide in the bushes. Jackson and Grant were taken back to the bank. Jackson was formally placed under arrest. Was appointed to represent Jackson. Jackson was ordered detained. Butler filed a motion for a mental competency examination to determine whether Jackson was sane at the time of the offense. Jackson and co defendant Grant were indicted on March 3. A psychiatric evaluation was completed. Jackson was arraigned on August 10. The district court adopted the Forensic Report's finding that Jackson was competent to stand trial. Butler informed the court that Jackson did not want Butler representing him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2820_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking reinstatement of the jury's verdict. 2 No. 05 2820 Freeman is serving a 58 year sentence in Wisconsin's maximum security prison (nicknamed the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0656n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Villa Gomez fled on foot but was The Honorable R. He was apprehended and taken to the bank where he was identified by two tellers as the robber. Authorities recovered $717.00 in U.S. currency from Villa Gomez who was found to be unarmed. Villa Gomez was indicted on charges of unarmed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was diagnosed with a severe personality disorder but was determined to be competent to stand trial. He was not placed on medication. It was thought psychotherapy might be helpful. The motion was granted. He was again diagnosed with Schizotypal Personality Disorder but was found competent to stand trial. He was not placed on medication. Villa Gomez was given a 3 level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. That adjustment would have put his offense level at 19. Villa Gomez was determined to be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C5C88F7E3A42B1588256E280002D259/$file/0215586.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are called on to decide whether the state court's decision. Involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation. He was sentenced to a four year prison term and was released in 1983. 968 HATTON v. Assault with intent to commit oral copulation under California Penal Code § 220 was not among the offenses requiring registration.1 After the California Court of Appeal pointed out this inexplicable omission in People v. B. Petitioner's Registration History Although assault with intent to commit oral copulation was not added to the list of offenses requiring registration under § 290 until 1993. Petitioner was presented with a document informing him that he had to register as a sex offender. The document was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8800AFCD4A13177188256DB8007843E9/$file/0215586.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are called on to decide whether the state court's decision. Involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation. He was sentenced to a four year prison term and was released in 1983. Assault with intent to commit oral copulation under California Penal Code § 220 was not among the offenses requiring registration.1 After the California Court of Appeal pointed out this inexplicable omission in People v. Assault with intent to commit oral copulation was added to § 220 in 1979. Was termed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9334DEB6F3900ED988256E5A00707C36/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/012264u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald Amati and his friend Debra Vlanich were convicted of 2 conspiring to operate an illegal gambling business. Was convicted of conducting such an illegal gambling business. With the intent of facilitating an ongoing illegal gambling business while he was an elected state official. Amati was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment. Vlanich was sentenced to pay a substantial fine and undergo two years probation. BACKGROUND It is undisputed that. An illegal gambling operation (video poker machines) was conducted at a coffee shop in Finleyville. It is also undisputed that the defendant Amati was a co owner of that coffee shop. It is also clear. That other persons involved in setting up and running the gambling operation were law enforcement agents or confidential informants utilized by the Government in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3736FCC72A9DD1C188256E5A00707C00/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677DAD9054A7918088256A920075D3DE/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. Its check on legislative power is quite limited it merely requires that punishment be prospectively imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7458546F1523D0AB88256AA20001EBFC/$file/9935845.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is further amended as follows: Slip op. How may society deal with convicted sex offenders after they have been punished for their crimes? How can society protect itself against future offenses and at the same time safeguard the constitutional rights of persons who have fully paid the price imposed by law for their crimes? We can decide the case before us without having to resolve the most fundamental question posed by the Alaska statute: that is. Be wholly ignored when imposing restrictive requirements and obligations on persons who have committed a sexual offense and been fully punished for their crimes? The plaintiffs in this action are convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences. As to defendants whose crimes were committed before its enactment. Convicted sex offenders have good reason to fear vindictive legislation. Their crimes are viewed by society as an affront to the institution of the family. Sex offenders will prey on our children and those of our neighbors. 10296 The Ex Post Facto Clause expresses our commitment to constrain the manner in which legislatures can address intense fears of the type evoked by the return to the community of convicted sex offenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="250"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0446p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0791n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Monroe Counties (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="246"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBC0044A0D5A00DE88256D8A005C8084/$file/0235863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lounsbury was indicted on 11 counts of aggravated murder for killing Adrienne Thomas in Portland. The state trial court held three hearings to determine whether Lounsbury was mentally fit to stand trial. The defendant is unable: (a) To understand the nature of the proceedings against the defendant. Oregon's statutes are silent. The defense presented two mental health experts who opined that although Lounsbury was mentally ill. The state attempted to show that Lounsbury was malingering. He nonetheless was unable to aid and assist in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="246"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DE9896C6423F40F88256F55007D41C1/$file/0335626o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judges Graber and Clifton have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. A vote was taken. Are DENIED. 16309 16310 THAI v. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: This is a case of exceptional importance. The statute provides: An alien ordered removed [1] who is inadmissible . . . [2] [or] removable [as a result of violations of status requirements or entry conditions. Which had held that an alien who was denied re admission into the United States could be held indefinitely on Ellis Island if the THAI v. Seemed to allow the government to detain indefinitely any alien who could not be deported because no country would have him. The Court distinguished Mezei on the ground that the alien there had not been admitted to the United States and thus was entitled to lesser constitutional protection than those who had been lawfully admitted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="246"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/984193P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Kind is a young man with a long history of minor and not so minor criminal offenses in Missouri. Two of those prior offenses are relevant to this appeal. He was charged in another Minnesota state court with two felony counts of terroristic threats. Kind falsely stated on the federal firearms acquisition form (ATF Form 4473) that he was not a convicted felon and had no pending felony charges against him. Kind was charged with making false statements during a firearms purchase in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). That motion was promptly granted. Kind's defenses were that Troy Swan was a legitimate assumed business name. That Troy Swan was not a convicted felon and was not charged with a felony at the time of purchase. That his state probation officer had told him he was not a convicted felon because of the sentence he received for the aggravated harassment offense in 1994. Waiver of Counsel Kind argues that the district court erred in allowing him to waive his right to trial counsel without making an adequate inquiry into whether the waiver was knowing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1339.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1991 is amended as follows: On page 23. Insert
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/506028B2B8E6533D88256B3B0082D162/$file/9917373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted for his predecessor. Is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted of first degree burglary in California state court. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft with priors. Was sentenced to three years imprisonment. A hearing before an Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994736.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. No. 99 4736 OPINION PER CURIAM: Scott Lee Sharp was convicted after a jury trial of depositing a letter in the mail containing a threat against the life of the President of the United States. I. Sharp first claims that his convictions were invalid because the district court failed to inquire. The factual basis of his argument rests nearly exclusively on documents which were not submitted and incidents which did not occur until after Sharp was convicted. The only fact to which Sharp points that allegedly should have alerted the district court that Sharp was possibly incompetent. Is the single threatening letter which gave rise to both counts against Sharp. A person is competent to stand trial if (1) he can
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-2274.htm">96-2274 -- SMOUSE V. LYTLE -- 10/29/1997<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In May 1993. Petitioner was arrested on thirty counts of criminal sexual penetration and one count of criminal sexual contact arising from his sexual conduct with his young daughter. The remaining counts were dismissed. District court determined petitioner's plea was voluntary and denied habeas relief. <p> On appeal. He argues his counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he failed to investigate potential defenses based on petitioner's mental state before advising petitioner to plead guilty. He must obtain a certificate of probable cause from this court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BE9F56E8C7E860988256C09005AC61F/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 10912 HALLETT v. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judg1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. 10914 HALLETT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F473982DAB14C7CA88256BF90059EC91/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5. Is no longer in effect. 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt). 10 Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment. The medical services provisions were in effect until January 5. The date on which the court's final judgment was entered. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="237"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/297A1A7ADEF7DA1188256BA600804D86/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district 1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. When it became apparent that more time was necessary. The court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. MORGAN 6339 scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4211.htm">99-4211 -- U.S. V. MARTINEZ -- 08/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
We conclude the plea agreement was not violated and affirm the conviction. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/04-70019-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether the petitioner is mentally competent to be put to death under the rationale of Ford v. Kelsey Patterson was convicted in the Texas courts of capital murder and sentenced to death. an unpublished opinion in May 2003. We granted a certificate of appealability for Patterson's claim that he was then incompetent to be executed. Patterson's counsel filed a motion in the convicting court to determine Patterson's competency to be executed under Article 46.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 1 A supplement to that motion was filed on March 16. In pertinent part: (a) A person who is incompetent to be executed may not be executed. .... (d) On receipt of a motion filed under this article. The presumption of competency under Subsection (e). (e) If a defendant is determined to have previously filed a motion under this article. The previous adjudication creates a presumption of competency and the defendant is not entitled to a hearing on the subsequent motion filed 2 2004.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May17/04-70019-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: This appeal presents the question of whether the petitioner is mentally competent to be put to death under the rationale of Ford v. Kelsey Patterson was convicted in the Texas courts of capital murder and sentenced to death. an unpublished opinion in May 2003. We granted a certificate of appealability for Patterson's claim that he was then incompetent to be executed. Patterson's counsel filed a motion in the convicting court to determine Patterson's competency to be executed under Article 46.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 1 A supplement to that motion was filed on March 16. In pertinent part: (a) A person who is incompetent to be executed may not be executed. .... (d) On receipt of a motion filed under this article. The presumption of competency under Subsection (e). (e) If a defendant is determined to have previously filed a motion under this article. The previous adjudication creates a presumption of competency and the defendant is not entitled to a hearing on the subsequent motion filed under this article.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/001325P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Uphoff was convicted by a jury of one count of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) and one count of intentionally damaging a facility providing reproductive health services in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(3). 1999 a fire was reported at Planned Parenthood. The prosecutor asked on cross examination whether the witness was aware that April is significant to antiabortion protestors since the Waco and Oklahoma City disasters had occurred in that month. Uphoff argues that the district court should have declared a mistrial because the question about Waco and Oklahoma City was so inflammatory and prejudicial that it could not be remedied by the curative instruction. The government responds that the 2 denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion because any prejudice was remedied by the curative instruction. That a 60 month sentence for arson is not cruel and unusual punishment. That the district court was unable to grant a departure from the mandatory minimum required by 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). It is presumed that a jury will follow a curative instruction unless there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2080.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A COA may issue only if the following standard is satisfied:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215674.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I was wrestling trying to get free. I was mad but he thought it was all a big joke.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ECB7794E53BA59BB88256EC3005BCDB6/$file/0235863.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lounsbury was indicted on 11 counts of aggravated murder for killing Adrienne Thomas in Portland. The state trial court held three hearings to determine whether Lounsbury was mentally fit to stand trial. The defendant is unable: LOUNSBURY v. The state attempted to show that Lounsbury was malingering. He nonetheless was unable to aid and assist in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="229"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946343.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. David was not admitted to Eufaula until He was fifteen years almost a year later. Although he was resuscitated. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we will refer to Dr. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction. The Court extended the Estelle analysis holding that the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the state to provide involuntarily committed mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-2166.htm">97-2166 -- PENSE V. SHANKS -- 02/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appeals the district court's denial of his petition for habeas relief. The only matters raised in the district court that are of concern on appeal are petitioner's allegations that his plea was not knowing and voluntary due to the following errors of his trial counsel: (1) counsel failed to communicate with petitioner or investigate the facts of the case. (3) counsel failed to seek a competency evaluation of petitioner despite his knowledge that petitioner was taking psychotropic drugs. 1291 and affirm. <p> The record before us paints the picture of a criminal defendant who was determined to plead guilty to the charges against him. Petitioner was arrested on November 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-8265.opn.html">CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="228"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-8265.opn.html">CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988265.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988265.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BC642D9E0A161EC882572D8004C49BE/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We confront once again the question whether defense counsel's performance during the sentencing phase of a capital trial was so deficient as to violate the defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Appellant Joe Leonard Lambright and his co defendant Robert Smith were convicted of first degree murder. Lambright was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Arizona courts on direct appeal and in state post conviction proceedings. After the case was returned to the panel for resolution of Lambright's remaining claims. Further ruled that even if the performance was deficient. Lambright was not prejudiced thereby. Because we conclude that trial counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial. Lambright and Smith were traveling across the country with Lambright's girlfriend. Smith complained to Lambright about the fact that he did not have a traveling companion with whom he could engage in sexual relations. Owen died as a result of her injuries.1 After the trio was arrested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DC97BD5111E33578825730C004BD410/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/94-2759.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WESTCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. While reserving his right to appeal the challenged pretrial rulings.<p> The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from admitting the proffered testimony without an insanity defense instruction.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely representing himself to be a United States Secret Service Agent. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary <i>mens rea</i> for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. Or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942759.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. FACTS Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely Honorable William C. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary mens rea for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. How does that or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a this misidentification of himself. Was a product of the altered brain chemistry which is associated with this genetically related metabolic defect. What we have labeled bipolar disorder to manifest itself. Q: Are you saying that Mr. Westcott did not know that he was lying? Are you saying that Mr. In the condition he was at the time of the charged acts. Be able to form or to have what the law refers to as criminal intent in your opinion?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/94-2759.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WESTCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. While reserving his right to appeal the challenged pretrial rulings.<p> The main issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from admitting the proffered testimony without an insanity defense instruction.<p> FACTS<p> <p> Defendant Westcott was charged with two counts of falsely representing himself to be a United States Secret Service Agent. Intending to use expert psychiatric testimony only to demonstrate that he lacked the necessary <i>mens rea</i> for the specific intent crime with which he was charged. Westcott's accused of representing himself to be a Secret Service Agent back in January 5th and January 6th of this year and attempting to have motel clerks accept his personal check for payment of a motel room. Or does his representation that he was a Secret Service agent. In my opinion it was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="224"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3147.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 and punitive damages against CMS totaling $1.5 million were awarded. The judge also specifically found that the trial testimony
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1339.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief forappellants. The two issues raised bythis appeal are: (1) whether the action below is a classaction. We hold that this suit is aclass action and that the provisions of the stipulation do notapply at the other institution.SUMMARY OF FACTS AND ISSUES In 1974 Roberto Navarro Ayala (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054952p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Department of Veterans Affairs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3496D4587B80681E88256BC0007BB5AC/$file/9917338.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A number of the sheriff's deputies who were on duty at the Washoe County jail the night Gibson died. That summary judgment was improperly granted on the question whether the County was deliberately indifferent to Gibson's mental illness while he was in custody at the county jail. Review is de novo. To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Was in the regular care of a psychiatrist. Gibson was entering a manic phase. He was pacing agitatedly through his home. Gibson where he was going. The psychiatrist on call at West Hills in an effort to find Gibson and have him taken to the hospital. Four dispatches were broadcast over the Reno1 and Washoe County police frequencies: On February 1 at 9:33 PM. A notice was broadcast. The broadcast stated that Gibson was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/023721p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are qualified for and wish to be placed in a community care setting.1 They seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to remedy what they claim are violations of their federal statutory rights to a more accelerated program of deinstitutionalization. The issue raised is significant as it implicates the extent to which the state may rely on general cost concerns to avoid its statutory responsibility to eliminate disabilities discrimination. Are: 1) confined in the Regional Forensic Unit and Juvenile Forensic Unit. 2) are involuntarily committed . . . . 3) have criminal charges pending who have been found to be incompetent to stand trial. Or 4) otherwise are subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1149.htm">98-1149 -- GOHIER V. ENRIGHT -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
It held that Enright was qualifiedly immune to an excessive force claim. That another caller complained the man was breaking car windows with a pipe. Enright was driving south down Nevada in the vicinity of the incidents when he saw Lucero. Slender object that Enright thought was a knife. Enright decided that Lucero was mentally ill. He was at this point no longer in the area illuminated by the car's headlights. Determined that it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Solely on the legal ground that the amendment would have been futile.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2457_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coulter was convicted of firstdegree murder and conspiracy to commit murder by an Illinois state court in 1987. Who is African American. 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 2 No. 06 2457 Although the jury in Coulter's criminal trial included three jurors who were African American. The state trial court found that the prosecution's reasons for its use of peremptory strikes were race neutral. We cannot say that its decision is either contrary to or an unreasonable application of Batson. A brief summary of the underlying facts and proceedings is in order before addressing the merits of Coulter's petition. Coulter was riding in a car with his two codefendants when the vehicle was stopped by Officer Michael Ridges of Prospect Heights. Coulter and his co defendants were spotted and pulled over. Coulter was charged with two crimes: the murder of Ridges and conspiracy to commit the murder of a Robert Fischer. The two alternates were also African American. Coulter's defense centered around his claim that the shooting was an accident that occurred when he 4 No. 06 2457 slammed the gun on top of the hood of the stopped car after he became angry while talking to Ridges.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E2F13A04BA1967688256E5A00707C4B/$file/0015273.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/5be13032a536348488256aa7006defaf/$FILE/0015273.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/0e2f13a04ba1967688256e5a00707c4b/$FILE/0015273.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="216"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BE13032A536348488256AA7006DEFAF/$file/0015273.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="215"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="214"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60529-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="213"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/019000p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pennsylvania inmate Daniel Jacobs was sentenced to death for murdering his girlfriend Tammy Mock and to life in prison for murdering their baby Holly Jacobs. We will reverse the District Court's denial of habeas corpus relief on Jacobs' claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the guilt phase by failing to adequately investigate. We will affirm the District Court's denial of habeas corpus relief on each of Jacobs' remaining claims. Davis that Jacobs was subject to the death penalty. Jacobs was tried before a jury in the York County Court of Common Pleas for the first degree murders of Tammy and Holly. That he was incapable of forming a specific intent to kill her given his mental state at the time of the killing. Jacobs was sentenced to death for murdering Tammy and to life in prison for murdering Holly. He would have discovered the following facts. Jacobs' mother Delois drank heavily while she was pregnant with Jacobs. After Delois left Jacobs' father when Jacobs was very young. She was involved in relationships with several men who drank heavily and abused her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lelm was ten years old. Maintaining Lelm's claim was time barred. The precise issue before us is whether § 541.15 tolls the period of limitation applicable to Lelm's claim for a maximum of seven years. When a plaintiff is under a disability such as infancy. Shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed. Nor in any case for more than one year after the disability ceases: (1) that the plaintiff is within the age of 18 years. (3) is an alien and the subject or citizen of a country at war with the United States. (4) when the beginning of the action is stayed by injunction or by statutory prohibition. *** (b) In actions alleging malpractice. Suspends the period of limitation until the disability is removed. Her claim was time barred. The issue before the LaVan court was whether the 1986 amendments to § 541.15 applied retroactively. Her claim would be barred because the claim would have expired in 1978. The current language of § 541.15 is a result of a 1986 amendment. Shall suspend the running of the period of limitation until the same is removed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/994315P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding there was no evidence Jackson was insane at the time of his death or that his suicide was accidental. The insurance company that benefits financially from the claim's denial is also the ERISA plan administrator. We do not automatically use a heightened standard of review any time the insurer is also plan administrator. The beneficiaries have failed to do so. The beneficiaries informed the Company they believed Jackson was not sane at the time of his death. A doctor hired by the Company's attorney conducted a thorough investigation and concluded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AD0FEF8CE8F688888256A40005ADE45/$file/9835026.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are amended as follows: 1. Harris' report was not furnished to Dr. Counsel requested and was granted public funds to continue securing Dr. We are called upon to decide whether the State violated Pawlyk's rights by unconstitutionally interfering with either his or his counsel's ability to access the assistance of a psychiatrist. We do so because they are relevant to the proper resolution of the question whether the State violated Pawlyk's constitutional rights. Pawlyk requested and was granted funds to retain a second psychiatrist.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8BC346F2EB50051D88256E5A00707B14/$file/9835026.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are amended as follows: 1. Harris' report was not furnished to Dr. Counsel requested and was granted public funds to continue securing Dr. We are called upon to decide whether the State violated Pawlyk's rights by unconstitutionally interfering with either his or his counsel's ability to access the assistance of a psychiatrist. We do so because they are relevant to the proper resolution of the question whether the State violated Pawlyk's constitutional rights. Pawlyk requested and was granted funds to retain a second psychiatrist.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1400p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this long running litigation aspects of which have been before this court before appellants. All of whom we will refer to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041863p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pruden argues that a critical statement he made to law enforcement agents was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Because it was given the day after he had been read those rights. The Miranda inquiry here requires us to decide not only whether Pruden knew and understood his rights when they were first read to him. Although some twenty hours passed between the time that Pruden was read his rights (and made of an earlier statement. We conclude that Pruden was clearly aware of his rights. There is no evidence in the record that links this condition to any of the enumerated purposes. The District Court granted Pruden's probation officer the discretion to decide whether Pruden would have to undergo mental health counseling. This was 2 an impermissible delegation of the judicial power: while probation officers may have discretion to decide the details of a defendant's mental health treatment. They may not be given the authority to decide whether or not such treatment will be required. We will therefore vacate this condition on supervised release.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6240.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She argues that she was denied effective assistance of counsel in connection with her decision to plead guilty to making a false statement to obtain federal employee's compensation. We AFFIRM the district court's decision denying Philipose habeas relief. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. When Philipose's doctors determined that she was no longer able to work at all. Philipose began spending time in these establishments. <hr> Suspecting that Philipose was performing some duties at her family's stores. Benefits recipients comply with federal regulations requiring them to disclose to the DOL any employment compensation they have received. The agents allegedly said:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></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-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The facts of this case are as follows: At the time of sentencing. One of the capital murder counts was dismissed by the state trial court. 2 Walton named Ronald Angelone. We will refer to respondent as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2277.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on briefs for defendant. Was on brief for the United States. Franklin Delano Lopez was convicted on seven counts charging him with white collar criminal offenses under federal law. Able counsel on both sides have briefed a host of issues. The case is remanded for resentencing on the two affirmed counts and for retrial on the five vacated counts. I. BACKGROUND Lopez was tried under a superseding indictment returned on February 18. No description of the events is necessary to our disposition of these false statement counts. The properties were financed by the Farmers' Home Administration. The gist of the government's charge was that in 1988 Lopez had withdrawn the sums in question from these accounts without the required permission and had created false invoices on the letterhead of a construction company to account for the withdrawals. That the invoices were nevertheless supplied 3 3 to auditors to explain the withdrawals. Lopez was rushed to a hospital emergency room with serious symptoms. Later tests revealed that Lopez was suffering a small brain lesion or tumor which was serious but.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-6650.man.html">DUREN V. HOPPER (11/20/1998, NO. 97-6650)<BR></A><BR>
On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett.</P> <P> At the sentencing. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. <EM>Duren v. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense. Duren asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel: (B) because he failed to present mitigating evidence of alcohol and drug abuse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/011308P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At which he was earning a good salary. The judgment of the District Court dismissing this complaint was entered on January 11. It was not until December 4. That the notice of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal was untimely. The sole defendant is Veera Reddy. Alleges that plaintiff is being forced to take certain medications. Thus is being deprived of liberty without due process of law. The District Court dismissed the complaint in this case on the ground that it was not being prosecuted by plaintiff's court appointed guardian. Guardians of course have standing to prosecute cases on behalf of their wards. There is no absolute rule that a ward may never prosecute a case in his own name. That the 2 guardian is guilty of some sort of misbehavior. Or is refusing to file suit without just cause. Or may believe that he is so threatened. Who is a frequent filer of complaints that are often dismissed. Treating the plaintiff as though he were a prison inmate. He is not. He is an inmate at the Fulton State Hospital.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976650.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Testified that Bedsole was not immediately killed by the small caliber bullet which penetrated the base of her skull. She was rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and Rule 20 has since been finalized as Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. 4 2 denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4262.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether such a factor has been established beyond a reasonable doubt is for the jury this is true as a matter of both state law and constitutional command. 536 U.S. 584 (2002) but once it finds aggravating circumstances and makes a recommendation about the appropriate punishment the ultimate decision is in the judge's hands. That there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the paragraph is changed to begin: When. There is no genuine issue of material fact. 1112 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1405_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that his conviction should be vacated because he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel and the prosecution failed to timely produce evidence that was favorable to his defense. Todd was preparing to fly from 2 No. 04 1405 Chicago's Midway International Airport to Los Angeles to answer criminal charges in a gun possession case stemming from a prior arrest. Todd was arrested. He waived his Miranda rights and explained to Special Agent Robert Amann that he had purchased the stun gun for protection and that he believed that people particularly law enforcement officers were following him. In addition to believing that government agents were following him. He was convinced that his present case No. 04 1405 3 was part of a larger conspiracy against him. Todd was evaluated by Michael L. Which stated that Todd understood that bringing a stun gun on an airplane was illegal and did not appear remorseful about having done so. The report also indicated that Todd was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976650.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Testified that Bedsole was not immediately killed by the small caliber bullet which penetrated the base of her skull. She was rendered paralyzed from the neck down. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States 3 Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042643P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court2 granted the motion because it concluded that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to self funded ERISA plans. The district court3 granted the motion and alternatively held that the Nebraska mental health parity law is preempted by ERISA as to Marriott's self funded ERISA plan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-6650.man.html">DUREN V. HOPPER (11/20/1998, NO. 97-6650)<BR></A><BR>
On their date they were planning to visit some haunted houses in the Birmingham area sponsored by a local radio station. Apparently believing both teenagers were dead. Kinder and Duren were apprehended shortly thereafter in nearby Huffman. Before the sentence was actually imposed. Learned that his deceased wife was a fifth cousin of the defendant Duren. The case was transferred to Judge James Garrett.</P> <P> At the sentencing. On the ground that the record was insufficient to conduct an adequate proportionality review of the sentence. Duren's petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 13. The Rule 20 court concluded that the majority of defendant's claims were procedurally barred and denied the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the merits. <EM>Duren v. Duren contends (A) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he presented an invalid defense. Duren asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel: (B) because he failed to present mitigating evidence of alcohol and drug abuse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033075p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A.M. was physically assaulted by other juvenile residents 2 on numerous occasions. States that A.M . was hit on the back of the head with a ping pong paddle thrown by another resident. A.M. was taken to the hospital for treatment. Other incident reports were completed by the Center's child care workers on an almost daily basis between August 2 and August 16. A.M . was thirteen years old. We will use the same designation. 2 2 1 OPINION OF THE COURT LAY. Alleging they violated his substantive due process rights by failing to protect him from harm while he was detained at the Center. The District Court's order granting summary judgment will be reversed in part and affirmed in part. A.M. was arrested in Lake Township. He was taken to the Center. Was seeing a psychiatrist in the community. The Center's administrators and supervisors were made aware of these facts upon A.M.'s admission to the Center or shortly thereafter. A.M.'s mental and behavioral problems were reflected in his behavior at the Center. A psychiatric evaluation was performed on A.M. by Dr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/003403.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of its complaint was that the managed health care organizations impaired the quality of health care provided by psychiatrists to their patients by refusing to authorize necessary psychiatric treatment. The principal issue on appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society has properly pleaded associational and third party standing. P. 12(b)(6) was premature. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1. SS 1001 1461.2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The case was removed from state court under ERISA's civil enforcement provision. To discern which claims are preempted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952631P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was found guilty of theft and embezzlement of public monies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. law school tuition. four The evidence at trial showed The Iversen took money she had collected as fees and later paid in cash for her Iversen claimed the money was taken by a robber. district court. Her offense level was eight and she had no criminal history. Her guidelines sentence was thus zero to six months imprisonment and two to three years supervised release within Zone A of the Sentencing Table. 1 Iversen in home deten and at the direction of the probation officer. Iversen was issued a citation her with shoplifting at a grocery store. The government cross appeals Iversen' r We have consolidated the appeals and affirm the district court. Iversen contends her trial counsel was not effective because h failed t We decline to address Iversen's f preserve Iversen's rights to Iversen's a speedy trial. 2 ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because no factual record has been developed on her claims. § 2255.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of (1) his trial counsel's failure to obtain a neuropsychologist and pharmacologist to testify at Clark's suppression hearing and trial about Clark's inability to waive his rights against self incrimination voluntarily and knowingly. Are excerpted from State v. Was shot and killed during an armed robbery of the establishment. The victim was working alone and appellant demanded money. The victim told appellant that there was no money. Handed appellant approximately $60 from the cash drawer and told him that was all of the money on the premises. The victim responded that there was no more money. Appellant was arrested after allegedly committing an assault and robbery at the Ohio Citizens Bank. Was arraigned in the Toledo Municipal Court for the assault and robbery at the bank. The public defender was aware that appellant was a suspect in the Manning murder. Appellant was taken to St. Appellant was released from the hospital and taken to the Toledo Police Detective Bureau where he was questioned by Detective James Lagger and Detective Sergeant Przeslawski.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3405.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Something is rotten in the Village of Alsip. The Alsip Chief of Police is Kenneth Wood. David Snooks is the department's Field Operations Commander. At the time this suit was filed. They attempted to remove him from his post on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The events overlap in time and we will describe them separately for clarity. We credit McGreal's version of the facts because he is the party opposing judgment. He was on routine patrol late one night in June 1995 when he noticed a number of cars in the parking lot of the Alsip Elk's Club in apparent violation of the local closing time ordinance. The machines themselves are not illegal but using them to gamble is No. 02 3405 3 prohibited. The video poker machines were owned by a company called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1192B66BCDB5B74188256F32007BFD62/$file/9799017o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: (1) The first full paragraph at slip op. 1866 is deleted. (2) The first sentence of the second paragraph at slip op. at 1866 is deleted. (3) The phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981825.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will remand to the Commissioner for further findings. I. Background Plummer is a high school graduate with an Associate's degree in business. She was twenty six years old at the time of filing. A. Medical History It is not necessary to review all of the evidence in the record pertaining to Plummer's medical impairments. The claimant was diagnosed with deQuervain's tendinitis of the left wrist in September. She was 2 Plummer v. The first mention of potential psychiatric problems in the record is an evaluation on November 26. She was diagnosed with depression. There is a medical note in her file from May 11. The next reference in the record to the claimant's mental health is a July 13. The note states Plummer is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7DCEF53D22C65A5882570AD0050FD8E/$file/0299002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a sixty six year old paraplegic on California's death row. Daniels was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of police officers Dennis Doty and Phil Trust. Daniels was sentenced to death on January 31. It is necessary to first review the events surrounding a bank robbery Daniels committed in 1980. Daniels was shot nine times by police officers. Daniels was rendered a paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. On the same day Daniels was sentenced. Although Daniels's physical distress was somewhat lessened. Roth was disturbed by Daniels's psychological condition and expression of suicidal thoughts. Daniels was released on bond. He was beaten. Daniels was ordered to surrender to custody. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Officers Doty and Trust were sent to arrest Daniels at the residence of James Cornish. They were shown to Daniels's bedroom by his caretaker. Cornish's infant son were in the house at the time. While Ross was assisting Daniels with getting dressed. Doty was lying on the floor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0047p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this § 1983 action is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to 15 Michigan corrections officers on duty at various points during the isolation. Here is what happened during the last six days of the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility's custody over Jeffrey Clark. Was on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></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-1.gif" ALT="198"></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-1.gif" ALT="197"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36D3991E0771F37D88256CE1005F60E7/$file/0235530.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is charged with evaluating and treating mentally incapacitated defendants. OSH argues that it is the county jails' responsibility to maintain and treat incapacitated defendants until OSH has an open bed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A mentally incapacitated criminal defendant who was detained in a county jail while awaiting transfer to OSH. Plaintiff Oregon Advocacy Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-7190a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Robert J. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Harvey S. Circuit Judge: This case involves the District of Columbia's 2003 policy for authorizing surgeries for intellectually disabled persons who are in the District's care and have never had the mental capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. The District of Columbia authorizes surgeries for such persons when: (i) two physicians have certified that the proposed surgery is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-2161.htm">97-2161 -- NEELY V. NEWTON -- 06/24/1998<BR></A><BR>
During the ten years she was under the care of her psychiatrist. She was hospitalized five times. The sole issue at Neely's trial was whether she was criminally insane at the time of the offenses. That Neely was not entitled to a jury instruction on the consequences of the NGRI and GBMI verdicts nor was she entitled to question the venire panel concerning those consequences.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAF6480E605ABF9688256BB5005BE541/$file/0099008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jennings claims his trial counsel was unreasonably and prejudicially ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. He further argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because of multi 6844 JENNINGS v. Jennings' fragile and failing mental health information that would have made a non first degree conviction reasonably probable we find that Mr. Jennings was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment during the guilt phase of his trial. Ligature marks suggesting she was bound with rope by her neck and ankles. Aspermatic semen containing antigens consistent with his blood was found on the victim. Jennings lost a knife whose blade length was consistent with the victim's stab wounds. Numerous sources noted that he was an habitual. Boechne was placed from the victim's home. (2) he was not competent to aid and assist counsel at trial. (3) he was impermissibly shackled at trial. The issues remaining on appeal are Mr. A generalized Certificate of Probable Cause (CPC) like that issued by the district court in this case is no longer sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
End page heading. > <div align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411911.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal from Jones's conviction and sentence. He was sleeping with his ten year old brother. Was sleeping with their parents. Tony's grandmother was sleeping by herself in a third bedroom of the home. Tony was awakened by a disturbance inside the home. When the light in his bedroom was turned on. Was unable to do so due to his injuries. All four had been severely wounded and there was blood all over them. Charlie and Brenda responded when Tony asked if anyone was still alive. His parents were dead. Were treated for their wounds. Who was standing in the doorway to Charlie's bedroom. His mother and father were both moaning as the appellant repeatedly stabbed them. Charlie was hit in the head several times. She stated that Giles was the one that shot her. He was shot once through the heart and once in the left arm. He was stabbed. Embry testified that Carl Nelson was alive when he was stabbed in the neck.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A683B353CCD965688256CB80000CEE4/$file/0199004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WOODFORD we find that Douglas's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present significant mitigating evidence to the jury. Douglas was convicted in California state court of the 1982 murders of two teenage girls. The case against Douglas was based primarily on the immunized testimony of his accomplice. Whose testimony was substantially corroborated by other witnesses. Douglas was linked to the missing girls by Dana Lee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043192P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which held that Laura Susan Reynolds's student loans were discharged in bankruptcy. Reynolds contends that undue hardship is not a strictly pecuniary test and that the bankruptcy court correctly held that the detrimental effect of the loans on Reynolds's precarious mental health warranted discharging the debts. She was treated by a psychiatrist for agoraphobia and depression. She was able to make up the missed coursework and to graduate cum laude in 1992. She passed the Colorado bar exam and was admitted to practice law in that state. She was never The Honorable Ann D. She is married. She was only able to make the payments by paying for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043132p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. 3 I. Decedent Henry Miller was born severely retarded. No one was ever appointed his legal guardian. He was placed in a Community Living Arrangement through Jewish Educational and Vocational Services. Carlos Moreno was the decedent's primary physician. The decedent was admitted to Frankford Hospital. The attending physician repeatedly advised Miller that her brother's condition was caused by an adverse reaction to the combination of medication that had been prescribed at the JEVS home by Markowitz. The decedent was transferred to the Philadelphia Geriatric Center. Charles Bongiorno was his attending physician. The cause of which was never diagnosed. The decedent was transferred from PGC to Temple University Hospital. The cause of death was listed as sepsis. Her complaint was filed on March 1. Moreno was an employee of Greater Philadelphia Health Action Inc. Because the GPHA is a grantee of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Its employees are considered employees of the Public Health Service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991656P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thorson1 on her claim under the Family and Gemini states in its brief that Thorson indicated at trial a preference for the surname Rindels (she married and changed her name after suit was filed). Uses the name under which the case was filed (Thorson). We will refer to the plaintiff as Thorson. 2 1 Medical Leave Act of 1993. Acceptable absenteeism at Gemini was limited to five percent of an employee's scheduled work hours in a rolling twelve month period. Those employees with excessive absenteeism (greater than five percent) were subject to termination. She was absent from work on Thursday and Friday. The test results were normal. Thorson worked that week but was terminated on February 18 for absenteeism exceeding five percent of her scheduled work hours during the previous twelve months. An eligible employee is entitled to twelve weeks of unpaid leave during any twelve month period for any of several reasons. The employee is entitled to be restored to her job (or to an equivalent position) upon her return to work after taking FMLA leave.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043859p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This class action appeal is unique in that both parties have the same objective: the timely discharge of long term 2 mental health patients 1 from the Norristown State Hospital (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which it granted the Defendants' request for a summary judgment on the grounds that (1) they had a reasonable suspicion that Fisher was suicidal. Their actions in affecting a seizure of Fisher were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (2) there was no genuine 1 No. 02 3996 Fisher. Fisher asserts that the officers who seized him did not have probable cause to justify1 a mental health seizure. Upon gathering that this was possibly a suicidal person. Who are husband and wife. Who was still seated in his folding chair approximately 250 yards away. The officers noticed he was carrying a rifle slung over his shoulder. Is also a named Plaintiff Appellant in this cause of action. Her state law claim for infliction of emotional distress was dismissed by the district court. Which declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the state law claims after it concluded that the Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Those claims are not the subject of this appeal. Although the dissent complains that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972032P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At trial American National's psychiatric expert was permitted to testify that Nichols exhibited poor
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-5215a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Lois McKenna Henry. With him on the brief were Robert R. With him on the brief were David W. I The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act seeks to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/989011.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dismiss the appeal. Hammer was a state prisoner transferred to the federal system from Oklahoma pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 5003 and Marti was a federal prisoner serving a sentence for bank robbery. Thereafter the case was tried to the jury but only with respect to the sentence. Their testimony is chronicled in the district court's opinion. The psychiatrists canvassed the range of cognitive and emotional capacities relevant to the question whether Hammer was competent to waive his rights and whether his waiver was voluntary. They concluded that Hammer was fully competent. That his decision to forego an appeal and ask for the immediate imposition and carrying out of the sentence of death was a competent and well reasoned decision. The district court also noted that the parties stipulated that none of the defense experts who testified at trial suggested that Hammer was incompetent at any relevant time. 1 On the basis of the foregoing. The district court found that Hammer was competent to waive his rights and that the waiver was voluntary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007665.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034395p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose sailboat was destroyed by heavy seas after it was moored at the Virgin Islands National Park. We must decide whether equitable tolling is applicable to save Hedges' claim. Where it was destroyed. Which was manufactured by Environmental Moorings International (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1952.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Bruck was the President and principal stockholder of Advance Resins. Which was in the business of grinding. A passerby reported to the Chicopee Fire Department that Building Three was on fire. There was no evidence that the fire had a point of origin in the area of Building Three where the welders had been working. He indicated that Advance Resins was immensely successful. He told the agents that the replacement cost of the destroyed equipment and inventory was approximately $1.5 million. Contending that these two groups of counts were not properly joined under Fed. P. 8(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20301.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is scheduled to be executed at 6 pm on March 26. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * court a motion for stay of execution premised on the argument that he is incompetent to be executed under the standards set forth in Ford v. Colburn was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of a woman hitchhiking near his home. direct appeal. It refused to consider the claim that he was incompetent to be executed. Finding it unripe for consideration because Colburn's execution was not imminent. Colburn did not raise the claim that he The was incompetent to be executed under the Ford standard. district court denied his request for relief. Execution was initially set for November 6. Colburn had based his application for stay to the Supreme Court on two grounds: (1) the state district court failed to satisfy constitutional requirements of due process when it refused to grant Colburn a hearing on the question of whether he was competent to be executed under the Ford standard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9927.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the state trial court's voir dire questions were constitutionally inadequate under Morgan v. That he surrendered his right to testify at the criminal responsibility phase of his trial in reliance on advice from the trial court that was erroneous under Simmons v. I. Oken was sentenced to death in 1991 by a Baltimore County jury for the murder of Dawn Garvin.1 Four years earlier. A .25 caliber handgun seized from Oken's bedroom was later determined to be the murder weapon. A piece of rubber recovered from the crime scene was traced to Oken's tennis shoes. Several of Garvin's neighbors identified Oken as the person who had attempted to gain entry to their residences under various 1 Oken was separately convicted of murdering his sister in law. To determine whether the Maryland Court of Appeals' rejection of Oken's claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043741np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that prison health workers and prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That his intention was to state a cause of action against Clinton County. Defendants have identified her as Lauralee Dingler. Goodrich contends both that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous because there were genuine issues of material fact on the issue of appellees' deliberate indifference. That the grant of summary judgment was premature. Because he was afforded no meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery. Appellees' position is that there was no error in the District Court's decision to grant 4 We commend pro bono counsel for their efforts on behalf of the appellant. 3 summary judgment and no abuse of discretion in its denial of the motion to appoint counsel. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment and the denial of the motion to appoint counsel. She asked how he was feeling. Goodrich informed her that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5400a.html">MODDERNO MARSHA V. KING, JAMES B.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972780.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The key question in this case is whether Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act). I. The facts are undisputed and can be stated in short order. Major Rogers was employed by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) as a maintenance engineer for approximately 22 years. As a state worker Rogers was a participant in a long term disability plan sponsored by the State of South Carolina (the State) for the benefit of its employees. The plan administrator was the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. It appears that all eligible state employees were covered by the same plan. Rogers was diagnosed with a panic anxiety disorder. He alleged (1) that he was discriminated against because he was denied the same level of benefits as someone with a physical disability and (2) that the plan's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: James Callahan was convicted and sentenced to death in Alabama state court for the intentional murder of Rebecca Suzanne Howell. Which was granted in part and denied in part. (3) his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Callahan did not argue to this Court that his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. There have been two trials. It is necessary for us to review the entire history of the case. At the club where he was performing with his band in Jacksonville. Was a student at Jacksonville State University. Howell was supposed to return to the club. Howell was found dead of asphyxiation in the Tallasseehatchee Creek in Calhoun County. Alabama her hands were taped together. Her belt was on upside down. She was not wearing pantyhose. Jimmy Dunagan was in his car outside of a washerteria six or seven blocks from the Norge Washerteria.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0329p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cubitt was robbed of his wallet and car keys and Petitioner and Doyle fled in Doyle's truck. Both of the credit cards were rejected by the Amoco station and Petitioner and Doyle fled the gas station in their truck with [out] paying for $ 32.00 in gasoline. Petitioner and Doyle were inside their truck at the gas station parking lot. Scott Cooper was sitting in his motor vehicle at the parking lot the Great Lakes Crossing Shopping Mall in Auburn Hills. Petitioner was seen walking into a party store where Mitchell Figa was working behind the counter. Figa if he was the only person present and then left. Petitioner and Doyle were spotted in their truck by a Waterford Township police officer. A traffic stop of the truck was attempted and Petitioner exited the truck and began to flee. The officer was subsequently confronted by Doyle who was still in possession of the sawed off shotgun. Doyle was fatally shot by the officer who was forced to act in self defense. Petitioner was apprehended in her flight on foot a short while later.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/02-51339-CV1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We expanded the scope of the COA to include the questions whether Roberts's trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by 1) failing to properly develop evidence confirming or refuting that Roberts was mentally ill. We find that the district court correctly concluded that the state habeas court's denial of Roberts's habeas claims was not unreasonable. Roberts was then charged with the murder of Vasquez. Neither the conviction nor the punishment were contested in any meaningful way. Apparently concerned that Roberts may not have been right of mind. He further stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1951.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are essentially undisputed. Steve Wentland were drinking at Moore's house. Who was seated in the front. Who was driving. After Wentland was down. Where they awoke Conner's employer and were given access to a warehouse. He was apprehended in Texas on No. 03 1951 3 January 30. The penalty phase hearing was held on October 9. Including that his confession was improperly admitted because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Which under Indiana law is a remedy limited to issues not known at trial or not available on direct appeal. Including: (1) his confession was obtained through manipulation. Was therefore improperly admitted at trial. (3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Legal Standards A federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/86683EF058F53A06882571FB0055198B/$file/0399006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The factual history of this case was detailed in our earlier opinion. Correll was convicted by an Arizona jury in 1984 of first degree murder. He was sentenced to 17132 CORRELL v. His conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. The district court determined that twenty six of Correll's claims were procedurally barred. We affirmed all of the district court's order except as to Correll's contention that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. RYAN 17133 sentencing was deficient. Because Correll's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4027.opn.html">DOE V. STINCER (5/4/1999, NO. 98-4027)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4027.opn.html">DOE V. STINCER (5/4/1999, NO. 98-4027)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6370802B473DC4D6882572A6008183A3/$file/0655559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order The class also includes children at imminent risk of foster care placement. 1 3392 KATIE A. v. A class of children who were in Los Angeles County foster care or at risk of being placed into foster care (Katie A. The complaint alleged that the class was entitled to and had not received
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C62A48CF73E000D4882570E6007B6899/$file/0430521.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We consider whether the district court's failure to answer the jury's question during deliberations was an abuse of discretion and. Whether the defendant was prejudiced thereby. Facts Kenneth Southwell was accused of starting a fire at the Heart Seed Company of Fairfield. Was charged with malicious use of a fire to damage property used in interstate commerce. The jury was instructed that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-2523.man.html">MEDINA V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Medina v. A Florida inmate who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Medina contends that his conviction and/or sentence were invalid on thirteen constitutional grounds. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Medina came to the United States from Cuba in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift when he was nineteen years old. He was released from a Cuban mental hospital immediately before leaving Cuba. Medina lived in the Orlando area and was befriended by Dorothy James. Medina moved to Tampa.<p> James was found dead in her Orlando home on April 4. Medina was found asleep in James' automobile at a rest stop on I 10 near Lake City and was arrested for theft of the automobile. Medina was arrested and indicted for the murder of James.<p> Medina requested psychiatric evaluation and was examined by two psychiatrists. Was held the day before trial. The court found that Medina was competent to stand trial.<p> Medina was tried before a jury March 15 18.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1856.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</U> was on brief. Including questions about the extent to which the EEOC's informal interpretations of the borrowed definitions are binding in the FMLA context.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-2523.man.html">MEDINA V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Medina v. A Florida inmate who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Medina contends that his conviction and/or sentence were invalid on thirteen constitutional grounds. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Medina came to the United States from Cuba in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift when he was nineteen years old. He was released from a Cuban mental hospital immediately before leaving Cuba. Medina lived in the Orlando area and was befriended by Dorothy James. Medina moved to Tampa.<p> James was found dead in her Orlando home on April 4. Medina was found asleep in James' automobile at a rest stop on I 10 near Lake City and was arrested for theft of the automobile. Medina was arrested and indicted for the murder of James.<p> Medina requested psychiatric evaluation and was examined by two psychiatrists. Was held the day before trial. The court found that Medina was competent to stand trial.<p> Medina was tried before a jury March 15 18.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0489n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a 66 year old woman with significant physical and mental impairments. When she was last employed. When her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Delete from close of the opinion. Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C425EBCCACE9AA2A88256B530000089D/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. 1531 Because of publicity. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. The three men were standing over a barrel in which some of Thorpe's belongings were being burned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031461p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This matter is the most recent in a line of cases involving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Public Welfare (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1986.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></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-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0069p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Moorer was the only administrator in the Baptist system who had responsibilities for two hospitals. His job duties were divided among several people. She asked Moorer for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-13969.opn.html">SANCHEZ-VELASCO V. SECRETARY OF THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (4/2/2002, NO. 01-13969)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-13969.opn.html">SANCHEZ-VELASCO V. SECRETARY OF THE DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (4/2/2002, NO. 01-13969)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1385.htm">00-1385 -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES CORPORATION V. OWENS -- 04/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/997.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to Respondent as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1300.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-3329.man.html">BRYAN V. SINGLETARY (5/11/1998, NO. 96-3329)<BR></A><BR>
Bryan asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his capital penalty phase because he failed to call any mental health experts to testify.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-3329.man.html">BRYAN V. SINGLETARY (5/11/1998, NO. 96-3329)<BR></A><BR>
Bryan asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his capital penalty phase because he failed to call any mental health experts to testify.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1844.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 11. Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-5157.htm">97-5157 -- JAMES V. GRAND LAKE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. -- 09/24/1998<BR></A><BR>
We will provide a general description of the incident underlying Ms. Discussion of many of these allegations is unnecessary. James specific allegations are relevant to the disposition of a particular issue. They will be discussed in the section pertaining to that issue. <p> In 1995. James was receiving outpatient treatment for depression at Grand Lake Mental Health Center (Grand Lake) in Pryor. Vella completed portions of a separate statement that was to be filled out by the examining doctor pursuant to the emergency detention act. <em>See</em> Okla. I am of the opinion that this person is a person requiring treatment. Whose shift was ending. James was examined by a psychiatrist. Even though the results of his examination were generally favorable. James was examined by another Eastern State doctor. When she was discharged pursuant to a court order. Vella and Grand Lake were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1240-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that OPA is entitled to such access and information pursuant to the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act. The Act was commonly referred to by the acronym
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claimant's impairments are severe and prevent her from performing her past work as a cook. BACKGROUND Claimant was born in 1944 and has a ninth grade education. Claimant was granted disability benefits by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Retirement Systems Administration. The ALJ concluded that claimant was not entitled to disability benefits. The ALJ modified his original findings and concluded that claimant's RFC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/021866P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shontos was fifty years old. The record is inconclusive as to whether she was paid for babysitting. Claiming she was unable to work as a result of multiple impairments including mild mental retardation/borderline intellectual functioning. These impairments have been verified by the state's consulting physicians. She was terminated after two months due to her inability to perform the work. 2 1 not equal the listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Shontos' verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) score was 76. Her performance and full scale IQ's were both 72. Pace was variable. May have difficulty demonstrating good judgment at all times. The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the requirements in A. Or D are satisfied. *** C. Bookmeyer is a nationally certified counselor who holds a master's degree in counseling. She is a registered nurse. Shontos was a highly anxious. States that a finding of a Marked or greater impairment in any of the areas listed above means that the individual is so restricted that a finding of `Disabled' is merited.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-7139.wpd.html">WINFREY V. CHATER<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff appeals the district court's affirmance of the Secretary's decision denying him disability insurance benefits.(1) Plaintiff claims to have been disabled since April 1991 as a result of pain in his neck. As that work is generally performed in the national economy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/021866P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shontos was fifty years old. The record is inconclusive as to whether she was paid for babysitting. Claiming she was unable to work as a result of multiple impairments including mild mental retardation/borderline intellectual functioning. These impairments have been verified by the state's consulting physicians. She was terminated after two months due to her inability to perform the work. 2 1 not equal the listed impairment under 20 C.F.R. Shontos' verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) score was 76. Her performance and full scale IQ's were both 72. Pace was variable. May have difficulty demonstrating good judgment at all times. The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the requirements in A. Or D are satisfied. *** C. Bookmeyer is a nationally certified counselor who holds a master's degree in counseling. She is a registered nurse. Shontos was a highly anxious. States that a finding of a Marked or greater impairment in any of the areas listed above means that the individual is so restricted that a finding of `Disabled' is merited.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4130.htm">01-4130 -- OLSEN V. LAYTON HILLS MALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
The appeal was timely under Rule 4. Although the Visa card was valid and had not expired. Appellant was unaware that his mother Donna Olsen had asked for a new card to be issued because of prior billing concerns. Discover Card informed her that Appellant was using the card fraudulently and that she should confiscate it. Who advised her that he would return with a personal check to pay for the purchases. <p> While Appellant was en route from the Layton Hills Mall to his home and back again. Appellant was charged with fraudulent use of a financial transaction card. To verify that the card was not fraudulent. Reasoning that he would be unable to determine whether the voices on the other end of the line were indeed Appellant's parents. Allow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6308.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When he was nineteen years old. He contends that there is substantial evidence to support his allegations of a disabling mental impairment. Miracle was born on September 14. When he was seventeen. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Pope thought he showed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/97-1440a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs were Daniel R. Were on the briefs for the State Petitioners in 97 1440 and 97 1441. Kaplan on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenor Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for Amicus Curiae Congressman Tom Bliley in 97 1441. With them on the briefs were David H. With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the briefs were Harold P. Edgar on the brief were Lois J. Were on the brief for intervenors Massachusetts and New Jersey. C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul were on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Orrin Hatch in 97 1440. Numerous petitions for review have been filed for each rule. That EPA should have considered the environmental damage likely to result from the NAAQS' financial impact on the Abandoned Mine Recla mation Fund. We agree with petitioners that EPA's choice of PM10 as the indicator for coarse particulate matter was arbitrary and capricious. Although the factors EPA uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with different levels of ozone and PM are reason able.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1402.html">WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Boldens were indicted in December of 1997 by a grand jury in Asheville. A superseding indictment was returned in October of 1998.1 The indictment alleged that. On which the Boldens were tried. This fraud scheme was carried out through their operation of Emerald Health CareTaylorsville (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44E513E0FE4020B188256B7200621453/$file/0055722.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Citizens allege that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-20194-CR1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Henry Bell was convicted on a plea of guilty for using a telephone to convey a false threat to damage or destroy a building by means of an explosive. Have convinced us that revisions to our discussion of the PROTECT Act's new standard of review are appropriate. Sentencing Guidelines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/039A92FE7F60F910882571C6007C031D/$file/0399001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is substituted for his predecessor Jeanne Woodford. Because Hovey admitted that he had taken the young victim against her will and committed the acts that resulted in her death. Finding a number of errors but determining that none is alone or cumulatively sufficient to merit reversal of Hovey's conviction. Eight year old Tina Salazar was abducted while she was walking home from school in Hayward. Later that afternoon she was found by the side of a road. Hovey was arrested in connection with the kidnapping of another young girl. Hovey was arrested for the Salazar kidnapping and murder. Hovey was charged with kidnapping and with first degree murder with two
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5050.html">MICHAEL LAMPE V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>David . By the time she was five years old. She suffered from frequent seizures and was mentally retarded. We affirm.</p> <p>I</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEBFB0B55123273F8825701A004BA0F2/$file/0317068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The motion for an extension of time in which to file a petition for rehearing is GRANTED. Is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: Slip op. at 2261. Line 14: Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052750P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a putative class action filed by sixteen present and former female patients at Nebraska's three residential mental health facilities the Lincoln Regional Center (LRC). The complaint alleges that these seven defendants are violating plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from sexual and physical assaults by male patients and staff. The district court certified a single class for these disparate claims: All women who were subjected to rape. All women who are currently. Or in the future will be. The district court abused its discretion in presuming these requirements were satisfied. I. The named plaintiffs are women who are or were involuntarily confined at LRC. Was the named plaintiff in a prior class action alleging failure to protect patients at HRC from assaults by male patients. That ruling is not before us. Ten plaintiffs allege they were sexually assaulted by facility employees. One plaintiff alleges she was sexually harassed by a staff member at NRC.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0406p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While that motion was pending. He concluded that each of Moore's ineffective assistance claims was either procedurally defaulted or meritless. That each alleged trial error was meritless. That the prosecutorial misconduct claims were procedurally defaulted. That the due process claim was procedurally defaulted and meritless. That the Miranda claims were procedurally defaulted. We may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless we conclude that the state court's decision: (1) was contrary to. Or (2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. A defendant (or petitioner) must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient. The proceeding's result would have been different. Although Moore's counsel was deficient for failing to impeach Riddle. Therefore was not ineffective assistance under Strickland. Blair's alibi was not air tight he could have committed the murder and still been at the license bureau during Riddle's time frame. Even if the Kentucky court might have undervalued Riddle's testimony2 (so we could possibly disagree with its ultimate decision).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-2280.htm">02-2280 -- LUCERO V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 10/08/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Albuquerque police officers R. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Are as follows. Is the legal guardian of her brother Fred Hildebrandt. Who is in his early forties. Hildebrandt is mentally retarded. Those conditions have made him prone to violent outbursts and attacks on caregivers. The danger and effect of such outbursts is aggravated by the fact that Mr. Hildebrandt is a large man. Hildebrandt is housed in a state funded (including federal allotments) residential mental health care facility. He is attended to by a staff of trained professionals employed by ARCA. Who was in the vicinity. The information she was provided regarding Mr. Arrived and were briefed on the situation by ARCA staff and Peterson. Officer Wood took charge because he was Critical Incident Team (C.I.T.) trained. <u>Id.</u> at 45. The three officers were advised by ARCA staff that a doctor was en route with papers authorizing Mr. Officers Wood and Johnson were advised it would be another forty five minutes before the doctor could get there.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1701.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Claimant was born in Puerto Rico on February 7. He completed the first grade and is illiterate. The first was filed in Puerto Rico on September 2. This second application was filed during the grace period created by the 1984 Social Security Disability Reform Act. Entitled claimant to a redetermination of That claim also was denied upon initial review and reconsideration. The ALJ ruled that claimant was not disabled on March 27. Which is the subject of this appeal.2 In contrast to his first two applications. (Tr. 272).3 The SSA determined that some of the earnings that had been attributed to claimant when his previous applications were processed were not. He indicated that his primary ailment was mental. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether claimant was disabled by his mental impairment. 3. A supplemental hearing was held. The ALJ found that he had earnings in 1980 and 1981 and that the question was whether claimant was disabled between September 11. This finding was based largely on the testimony of Dr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9830.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Virginia court convicted Bobby Lee Ramdass of capital murder and sentenced him to death for the murder of Mohammed Kayani during the robbery of the convenience store where Kayani was a clerk. To tell the jury during sentencing that he was ineligible for parole. Accepting the Virginia Supreme Court's state law determination that Ramdass was not. We conclude that Simmons was not applicable. I The facts of Kayani's murder are related by the Virginia Supreme Court as follows: 2 During the night of September 1 and early morning of September 2. Were returning home in a car with three other men. A 7 Eleven clerk who was behind the cash register. Who were unarmed. Ramdass was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC027F2EF1891DED882570D7007CD1D9/$file/0356766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitions filed by both parties for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Carty was sen 16382 CARTY v. Eight years later a day before Carty was to be released on parole the San Diego County District Attorney filed a civil commitment petition against Carty pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1161.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. III.</P> <P> The notice requirement is waived if</P> <P> (a) The attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice. Or</P> <P> (b) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54174A94D53286138825709D005609EF/$file/0356766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carty was sentenced to state prison for a term of sixteen years. Eight years later a day before Carty was to be released on parole the San Diego County District Attorney filed a civil commitment petition against Carty pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F954C769582125388257235007DB22D/$file/0499008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. YLST The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Raley was convicted in California state court. Because deliberations that are intrinsic to the jury process are not grounds for reversal. Because the records in question were not Brady material. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with the kidnap. He also was charged with the kidnap. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of some claims at the state level and. Was denied on all grounds. The findings of the California Supreme Court are presumed correct. Although the mansion was not generally open to the public. Witnesses who had taken such tours with Petitioner testified that he had asked them to go into certain rooms of the mansion and scream to show that the rooms were soundproof. L.M. was 17 and J.G. was 16. Petitioner was on duty guarding the house. Sounds were heard outside. Petitioner said that the police were there with training dogs and that the girls needed to hide or Petitioner would lose his job.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7BBACE6F011EFD988256C1B0059FACB/$file/0110087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schweitzer gave Finley several documents that looked like financial instruments and were entitled. It was returned marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1440c.html">AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1440d.html">AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC., V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
Petitioners on Ozone Issues in 97 1440 and 97 1441.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/02-2002.htm">02-2002 -- PALMER V. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 11/13/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Ann Palmer appeals from the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. After plaintiff's application was denied initially and on reconsideration. A de novo hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). While she suffers from severe mental and physical impairments and is unable to perform her past relevant work. There are other jobs available in the national economy which she can perform. That she is therefore capable of working as a customer service clerk. The Commissioner has established a five step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. <em> Id. </em>Here. We review the Commissioner's decision to determine only whether her factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether she applied the correct legal standards. <em>Id. </em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510252.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mary's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual. Although he was also able to At oral argument. We will refer to Hurlbert in the present tense. 2 1 employ his paramedic skills as needed. Hurlbert was promoted to a supervisory position that involved the maintenance of St. Hurlbert was required to ensure that EMS units were adequately staffed during his shift. He was released by his cardiologist. Hurlbert was diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Among the medications he was prescribed was Paxil. The oversight of EMS was transferred from vice president Marilyn Hill to executive It is uncontroverted that Hurlbert remained on Paxil up through the time he filed suit in August of 2003. That his dosage was increased at one point. 3 2 director Bonnie Butler. Should have been terminated by Sparky Wilson. Butler decided to have Hurlbert undergo a competency evaluation.4 Around that time Hurlbert also learned that his mother would have to undergo open heart surgery. Butler testified in her deposition that she was concerned the father of the child with the seizure disorder might bring a lawsuit against St.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/93-2225.wpd.html">RIDDLE V. TREVINO<BR></A><BR>
Who are convicted sex offenders and inmates in the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility at Las Cruces. Only six of the twenty one plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. They averred that each of them as convicted sex offenders have been denied adequate treatment for their mental disorders related to their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/97-1440d.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/97-1440c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Henry V. With him on the briefs was Joy E. Gasaway and Daryl Joseffer were on the brief of intervenors Atlantic City Electric Com pany and American Road and Transportation Builders Associ ation in 97 1440 and 97 1441. With them on the briefs were John C. Fox were on the brief for inter venors Massachusetts. Are requisite to protect the public health.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 02 3623 v. > . None of which was for diabetes. He did not mention that his absence was in any way related to his diabetic condition. This suspension triggered plaintiff's termination because it was his third attendance related suspension within five years. Plaintiff was terminated. Mentioned that his March 31st absence was due to his diabetes. Stating that the absence was due to an extended episode of diabetes related hypoglycemia. Plaintiff further testified that he was. Tha t this apparent misrepresentation by plaintiff was not a factor in its decision to terminate plaintiff. It is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant improperly terminated plaintiff under the A DA or the FM LA in the first instance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021486.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that the claims against it and related defendants were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-6937.man.html">HOLLADAY V. HALEY (4/19/2000, NO. 98-6937)<BR></A><BR>
Rebecca Ledbetter Holladay was living in a mobile home in Gadsden. Were all at the mobile home. He was shot and his body was later discovered outside of the trailer. Immediately after Thomas was shot. Who was back in the bedroom. He thought that Thomas was his ex wife's boyfriend. Holladay was apprehended in Gainesville. Florida.</P> <P> At trial Holladay testified that he was in Nashville at the time of the killings and denied killing any of the victims. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on July 27. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 25 27. Finding some of the claims procedurally barred and determining that the others were meritless. Holladay asserts a substantive claim that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by the excessive security in the courtroom and the fact that he appeared in shackles. Because the issue of whether petitioner's counsel were ineffective is a mixed question of law and fact. It is subject to de novo review. <EM>See Mills v. 1285 (11th Cir.1998).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-6937.man.html">HOLLADAY V. HALEY (4/19/2000, NO. 98-6937)<BR></A><BR>
Rebecca Ledbetter Holladay was living in a mobile home in Gadsden. Were all at the mobile home. He was shot and his body was later discovered outside of the trailer. Immediately after Thomas was shot. Who was back in the bedroom. He thought that Thomas was his ex wife's boyfriend. Holladay was apprehended in Gainesville. Florida.</P> <P> At trial Holladay testified that he was in Nashville at the time of the killings and denied killing any of the victims. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on July 27. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 25 27. Finding some of the claims procedurally barred and determining that the others were meritless. Holladay asserts a substantive claim that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by the excessive security in the courtroom and the fact that he appeared in shackles. Because the issue of whether petitioner's counsel were ineffective is a mixed question of law and fact. It is subject to de novo review. <EM>See Mills v. 1285 (11th Cir.1998).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4313.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Villagrana Flores pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and was sentenced to 77 months' imprisonment followed by 36 months' supervised release. George police received a call from a patron at a Denny's restaurant indicating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001277.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AT&T contends that it did not violate the FMLA because the illness for which Miller sought FMLA leave an episode of the flu was not a serious health condition as defined by the Act and implementing regulations. That if Miller's flu was a serious health condition under the applicable regulations. Those regulations are contrary to congressional intent and are therefore invalid. AT&T claims that the award should have been limited by after acquired evidence and Miller's failure to mitigate her damages.1 We conclude that none of AT&T's challenges warrants reversal. There is no reason to disturb the award of attorneys' fees. 2 An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-2306.htm">01-2306 -- OGDEN V. BRAVO -- 01/28/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Kevin Ogden. We deny his request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. <p> Ogden was convicted of first degree murder of a community service officer. Ogden was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and additional time on each of the firearms counts. His convictions were affirmed in his direct appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court (NMSC). Which was denied on March 9. It is disputed whether Ogden sought review of that denial by the NMSC. The magistrate concluded they were first raised in Ogden's state habeas petition and were procedurally barred due to Ogden's failure to file a timely petition for writ of certiorari with the NMSC. We conclude that five of the issues now asserted in Ogden's federal habeas petition were presented to the NMSC. Either on direct appeal or in a pretrial interlocutory appeal.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D1BF90B4AFFBDB288256A15005FD78E/$file/9915207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The SCIF's EAP refused to produce records or to testify about the substance of communications with other employees on the ground that the communications were privileged under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the Supreme Court's holding in Jaffee v. Employee Assistance Programs are worksite based programs designed to assist employees in identifying and resolving personal issues. EAPs began in the 1970s as alcohol and drug treatment programs but have substantially broadened their scope and have become increasingly prevalent at all different types of workplaces. 45 percent of all full time workers have access to EAPs. 000 employers have adopted EAPs. EAPs have been shown to reduce absenteeism. The SCIF's EAP is staffed by a coordinator and three consultants. Although no one on the staff is a licensed psychia trist. All of the consultants 3455 have backgrounds in psychology or social work. Confidentiality is a key component of the EAP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/992917P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She was initially denied benefits and requested reconsideration. Complained that she had to stop driving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0103n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Commissioner responds that Lian was not a treating physician because he saw Kornecky only once. That his opinion was inconsistent with more well supported opinions rendered by other sources. A subjective allegation of disabling symptoms alone is insufficient. 2 the SSA explained what is needed under the regulations to show a medically determinable impairment:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></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-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3310.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. That petition is also denied. Other individuals to notify the state government whenever they have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0985p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that no payment is due for time spent in public relations efforts. We will disallow those fees as well as those for duplicative work. Other claims that were not supported by evidence at a hearing on fees or that were improperly inflated because the tasks performed were easily delegable to personnel with substantially lower hourly rates. Will also be denied. A consent decree was entered. It was not long before the controversy erupted again. The plaintiff class filed a motion to have the court hold the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in contempt for failing to adhere to the terms of the consent decree. 000 and that matter is not at issue. An award of fees and expenses in this case is permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and under the court's inherent power to reimburse a party for outlays incurred in securing an adjudication of contempt. The formula for awarding fees in the contempt context is usually the more generous. The innocent party is entitled to be made whole for the losses it incurs as the result of the contemnors' violations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. That there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found that they violated Davis's constitutional rights. That they are entitled to qualified immunity. He was involuntarily committed to Westborough State Hospital (Westborough) for periods during 1991 and 1992. He was committed to Westborough for a third time on May 12. Davis testified that he told Dexter that he was unhappy because no one had visited him on his birthday two days earlier. Who is Davis's key witness. Davis and Dexter were loud and boisterous as they rode the elevator up to Hennessey 2A. Wiegers had not received notice from Chauncy Hall that Davis and Dexter were coming. Wiegers was responsible for 37 patients and several staff. About half of whom were outside on a picnic. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE0NTctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1457-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Act was commonly referred to by the acronym
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0383p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
There is no case authority holding that a claim of actual innocence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/003885U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was committed to the St.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1996
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B44000E3C55ECEA288256E5A00707AA3/$file/9915207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The SCIF's EAP refused to produce records or to testify about the substance of communications with other employees on the ground that the communications were privileged under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the Supreme Court's holding in Jaffee v. Employee Assistance Programs are worksite based programs designed to assist employees in identifying and resolving personal issues. EAPs began in the 1970s as alcohol and drug treatment programs but have substantially broadened their scope and have become increasingly prevalent at all different types of workplaces. 45 percent of all full time workers have access to EAPs. 000 employers have adopted EAPs. EAPs have been shown to reduce absenteeism. The SCIF's EAP is staffed by a coordinator and three consultants. Although no one on the staff is a licensed psychia trist. All of the consultants 3455 have backgrounds in psychology or social work. Confidentiality is a key component of the EAP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7021a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/013685P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Resentencing was ordered based on his sentencing phase waivers and the lack of a presentence report. These appeals were consolidated with Shafer's direct appeal. Shafer was granted a conditional writ. To become permanent if the state were not to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas and afford him an opportunity to proceed to trial. Keith Dennis Young and Ford Jerry Parker were shot to death on April 29. Each also claimed to have shot one of the victims. Shafer gave a confession that was later used as the factual basis for his guilty pleas. Which was soon taken over by Shafer and Steinmeyer and driven to a remote location. Shafer was charged by information with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action. A public defender was appointed to represent him. Several other defense attorneys were appointed but did little. A motion to transfer Shafer to another facility was eventually filed. Although the court found that some of these allegations were probably true. The officer contacted attorney McGraugh who told him not to interview Shafer unless she was present.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1810.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Oyola was not disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation process set out in 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f). The ALJ determined that Oyola's epilepsy was a severe impairment which precluded him from returning to his previous employment. That Oyola did not have a disabling emotional or mental condition. Although the ALJ found that Oyola could not engage in work in which he would have to climb or balance. He determined that Oyola was not 1. The medical record shows that Oyola only occasionally complained of pain or of other medical problems that might have caused him pain. He was advised to rest for a week. No medication or course of treatment was prescribed. Was prescribed medicine. He was reported stable when he left the hospital. Although the 1985 medical 3 report is practically unreadable. It appears to indicate that medication was prescribed for Oyola's pain. His failure to do so was not error under the circumstances. The medical records evidencing Oyola's reports of pain are not very probative.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951531P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of her dueprocess right to a safe and humane environment while she was a patient at Hawthorn. Because Kathleen was voluntarily admitted to Hawthorn. Kathleen was admitted to Immediately Hawthorn as a voluntary inpatient at her parents' request. inpatient in a private hospital. We reverse that order because there is a genuine issue of fact concerning whether Kathleen. Was a voluntary before Kathleen's admission to Hawthorn. On to them was a state run facility where they would be charged in accordance Thus. Kathleen was admitted into Hawthorn. She was placed on the precaution
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0540n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pasco believes her alleged disability is a result of a horrific. Was kidnapped. She underwent surgery and was hospitalized for twelve days. When she was released. Noted that Pasco was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1574.htm">01-1574 -- CENTER FOR LEGA ADVOCACY V. HAMMONS -- 03/27/2003<BR></A><BR>
Is entitled. Or whether such access is barred by Colorado statutes prohibiting access to such records. The district court held CLA was not entitled to those records. We reverse. <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> CLA is a non profit Colorado corporation designated by the governor of Colorado as the state's Protection and Advocacy System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049000p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted in 1990 following a jury trial of three counts of first degree murder. The fire was started in the basement by use of an accelerant. Pierce was living with his parents just before the fire because his marriage had failed and he was unemployed. Testified for the Commonwealth that Pierce believed that his parents were conspiring against him and trying to poison him. Pierce's competence to stand trial and unyielding negative views about a psychiatric approach to his defense were issues from the beginning of the criminal proceedings. Pierce moved to have two prior lawyers discharged on the ground that each was conspiring with the District Attorney of Philadelphia. Eric Becker did a mental status examination and concluded that Pierce was competent to stand trial. Wallace tried to have the trial court order other evaluations in 1990. He then sought to have Wallace removed from his case. Pierce went to trial with Smarro as counsel and was found guilty. That he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance at the time of the murders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0334n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Jeffery Lee Moore pleaded guilty to bank robbery pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced by the district court to 180 months in prison.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-6637.man.html">WYATT V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyatt v. Alabama's probate judges.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-6637.man.html">WYATT V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyatt v. Alabama's probate judges.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3481_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant was indicted for defrauding Indiana Medicaid. The government's case centered on three independent methods that Davis used to get Indiana Medicaid to pay for procedures that they might not otherwise have paid: he billed for services that were actually provided by other people (substitute billing). He challenges whether one of the three charged methods of fraud substitute billing was actually pro 2 No. 05 3481 hibited. I. HISTORY Davis is a psychologist who operated two clinics in Indiana. He was licensed as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4171_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The specific issue in this appeal is whether and to what extent the State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must disclose records uncovered in its investigation into the use of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEECEA63835F703288256AA7006E0B48/$file/0050594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether presentence notice was required by Fed. As the district court had reason to believe that Lopez was in need of treatment in order to make it in the real world. Disclosure of information about his status was reasonably required for successfully supervising his reentry into society. Lopez was transferred on January 14. He was arrested when he returned to pick up his pay check. Lopez was indicted on one count of escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Lopez found things at the halfway house moved
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Two issues the exclusion of expert evidence attempting to establish an insanity defense based on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder claimed to have resulted from military service in Vietnam and the prosecutor's ill considered reference to religion in his closing argument merit close discussion. That defendant Carlos Lugo L pez was interested in selling kilogram quantities of cocaine. Malav told Lugo L pez that he could page Mor n (whom Malav said would handle the money) when he was ready to make the transactions. Lugo L pez left a message for Mor n that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E21767784D86EB2288256E5A00707C4C/$file/0050594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether presentence notice was required by Fed. As the district court had reason to believe that Lopez was in need of treatment in order to make it in the real world. Disclosure of information about his status was reasonably required for successfully supervising his reentry into society. Lopez was transferred on January 14. He was arrested when he returned to pick up his pay check. Lopez was indicted on one count of escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Lopez found things at the halfway house moved
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/203903E224439F7A88256FB6005E3901/$file/0317068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allows the state to confine particularly dangerous individuals who have been convicted of multiple sexual offenses. If either party so requests) must determine that he is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0382p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a tragic case. I. BACKGROUND Perez's Prior Terms of Incarceration at Oakland County Jail Perez was born in 1983. Was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and as being learning disabled when he was six years old. When he was 17 years old. He pleaded guilty to two charges of felony larceny from a building and was given a six month sentence on May 11. It was initially determined that due to Perez's age he should serve his time in a boot camp. After he reported to a boot camp counselor that he was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices telling him to quit or escape. Perez was transferred to the Oakland County Jail in late June. He was met by defendant Roberta Rice. Which was conducted by Dr. Perez was housed with a roommate and placed on a 30 minute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040d.htm">96-4040D -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
Any such sharp dichotomy...
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040a.htm">96-4040A -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
The correct sentence should read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040.htm">96-4040 -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-4040.wpd.html">HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY<BR></A><BR>
The correct sentence should read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-3506.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY (12/1/1998, NO. 96-3506)<BR></A><BR>
Was stopped and detained by an officer on his way to the crime scene. Then they were released.</P> <P> At trial Mills' roommate [Sylvester Davis] testified that he and his girlfriend [Viola May Stafford] hid some shotgun shells that Mills had given them. He also stated that Mills told him that a city worker had found a shotgun later shown to have fired an expended shell found near the victim's home.</P> <P> After the murder. Ashley was arrested on some unrelated charges. Ashley saw the man in the house had awakened and was getting up. Ashley was granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes and also for several unrelated charges pending against him at the time he decided to confess and cooperate.</P> <P> Mills testified in his defense. (5) whether his conviction for aggravated battery was improper. (6) whether his convictions for both felony murder and burglary were improper. (7) whether the trial judge's override of the jury's recommendation was improper. <EM>See Mills. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mills's contentions concerning ineffective assistance and gunshot residue tests were meritless.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-3506.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY (12/1/1998, NO. 96-3506)<BR></A><BR>
Was stopped and detained by an officer on his way to the crime scene. Then they were released.</P> <P> At trial Mills' roommate [Sylvester Davis] testified that he and his girlfriend [Viola May Stafford] hid some shotgun shells that Mills had given them. He also stated that Mills told him that a city worker had found a shotgun later shown to have fired an expended shell found near the victim's home.</P> <P> After the murder. Ashley was arrested on some unrelated charges. Ashley saw the man in the house had awakened and was getting up. Ashley was granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes and also for several unrelated charges pending against him at the time he decided to confess and cooperate.</P> <P> Mills testified in his defense. (5) whether his conviction for aggravated battery was improper. (6) whether his convictions for both felony murder and burglary were improper. (7) whether the trial judge's override of the jury's recommendation was improper. <EM>See Mills. The Florida Supreme Court held that Mills's contentions concerning ineffective assistance and gunshot residue tests were meritless.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014524.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Lawrence Crumbliss was convicted by a jury of embezzlement from an organization receiving $10. Who intentionally misapplies property valued at $5000 or more which is under the care. Crumbliss was sentenced to a term of five years probation with a special condition of 364 days home confinement with electronic monitoring. Which was a departure below the guideline range of 37 46 months based on Crumbliss' ill health. Crumbliss also contends that § 666 is unconstitutional on its face. Who were military dependants. Was the project director. The Cardinal Mental Health Group (CMHG) was hired to provide services and administer the demonstration project. Lawrence Crumbliss was the executive director of CMHG. All its operating funds were advanced by the North Carolina Division of Mental Health (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/991272P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was arrested in Faulkner County. Was booked into defendant Faulkner County Detention Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct96/95-6584.opa.html">ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM V. J.S. TARWATER DEVEL. CTR.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. The controlling statutory law persuade us that the injunction was appropriately entered. The Act does not merely require that the state have an advocacy system. (1) the State must have in effect a system to protect and advocate the rights of persons with developmental disabilities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-6052.opn.html">CADE V. HALEY (8/17/2000, NO. 99-6052)<BR></A><BR>
Background</P> <P> Cade was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1978. His conviction was vacated by the United States Supreme Court because at the time the Alabama death sentencing procedure did not comply with the Eighth Amendment. <EM>See Cade v. Cade was again tried. Ct. 184 (1988).</P> <P> Cade's conviction is based on events that took place in 1977. Alabama three times.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1812.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Handler were on brief for appellants Class of 48 + 1 and Donald Pearson and Sherman Miller. Geiger was on brief for appellants Pearson. Were on brief for appellees. This opinion is a continuation of King v. Which is the latest judicial discussion in a group of cases dating back to 1972. A reference to prior cases is contained in the opinion just cited. Patients were to have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct96/95-6584.opa.html">ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM V. J.S. TARWATER DEVEL. CTR.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. The controlling statutory law persuade us that the injunction was appropriately entered. The Act does not merely require that the state have an advocacy system. (1) the State must have in effect a system to protect and advocate the rights of persons with developmental disabilities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-6052.opn.html">CADE V. HALEY (8/17/2000, NO. 99-6052)<BR></A><BR>
Background</P> <P> Cade was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1978. His conviction was vacated by the United States Supreme Court because at the time the Alabama death sentencing procedure did not comply with the Eighth Amendment. <EM>See Cade v. Cade was again tried. Ct. 184 (1988).</P> <P> Cade's conviction is based on events that took place in 1977. Alabama three times.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1899p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue on appeal is whether a board of education exceeded its authority by implementing a consensual program to distribute condoms in public schools in order to prevent disease. We will affirm. HIV infection are epidemic among school age youth . . . . Have an obligation to promote a healthy lifestyle for all adolescents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1306.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Little with whom Law Offices David Efr n was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Plaintiffs appellants are six TORRUELLA. Was the victim of a stabbing. Celso was stabbed by his brother. Who is not a party to the suit. The family members filed a civil rights damages action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994) against two officers of the Puerto Rico Police Department alleging that the officers' failure to enforce a temporary detention order against Francisco caused the injury to Celso and thus violated his constitutional rights.1 The district court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that a due process right protected under section 1983 was violated by the officers' failure to prevent private violence. Where the ultimate harm is caused by a third party. A nephew of both Celso and Francisco who is not a party in the instant suit. 2 to have his uncle Francisco involuntarily detained for psychiatric examination. If the examining doctor concludes that detention for any longer period or treatment of the subject is required.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-1139.htm">97-1139 -- LIPS V. AMERICAN COMMUNITY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. -- 10/23/1998<BR></A><BR>
Filled in the answers himself. <p> Four questions on the insurance application are relevant to this case. Do you have any physical.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0293n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's Medical History Plaintiff was born on October 23. He is a high school graduate and has worked as a delivery driver and machine operator. I am doubtful he will be able to return to any type of gainful employment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-3835.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BULL (6/12/2000, NO. 98-3835)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is a case of first impression in this Circuit. The issue on appeal is whether the district court had authority to impose such conditions since they are unrelated to the credit card crime and conviction. We affirm. </P> <P> A pre approved VISA credit card application in another person's name was mistakenly delivered to Bull. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Bull challenges this condition on the ground that it is not reasonably related to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6374.htm">97-6374 -- HAMMETT V. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Maribob Hammett brought an action against the State of Oklahoma. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is barred because they are entitled to qualified immunity. They assert that the district court's denial of their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is immediately appealable because it was purely a legal decision. <p> Orders denying qualified immunity before trial are immediately appealable when they resolve issues of law. <u>See</u> <u>Behrens v. This court summarized when the denial of qualified immunity is appealable in <u>Foote v. Spiegel</u>: <p> A determination that the law allegedly violated by the defendant was clearly established at the time of the challenged actions is an abstract issue of law that is immediately appealable. A determination that under either party's version of the facts the defendant violated clearly established law is also immediately appealable. An order denying qualified immunity on summary judgment is not appealable if it merely determines the facts asserted by the plaintiff are sufficiently supported by evidence in the record to survive summary judgment. <p> 118 F.3d 1416.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314908.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were affirmed by this Court in United States v. From a certificate of appealability Battle presents six arguments to persuade us that his death sentence was imposed improperly. The Facts Underlying Battle's Conviction Battle was serving a life sentence for the 1987 sexual assault and murder of his wife. Correctional officer D'Antonio Washington was found lying on the floor of Cellhouse C with blood spurting out of his head. Battle was seen nearby standing beside a vending machine. Behind the same vending machine a hammer with fresh blood on it was found. Who was authorized to carry tools. Who told the agents that he felt he was getting
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. Vickerson & Beneman was on brief for appellant. Was indicted in a single count as being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) (1988).1 Tracy pleaded not guilty and not guilty only by reason of insanity. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is an anxiety disorder whose
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6022.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Grogan had only a small window of time during which he was insured under the Social Security system. Grogan does not challenge that this is the appropriate window. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. 1291. Because the agency was required to consider evidence of Grogan's disabilities if they manifested themselves inside his insurance window. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Background The procedural history of this case is unusual. That claim was denied. His claim was denied by the agency initially. Because the agency contended both that Grogan's income was too high and that he had withdrawn his application. The case was remanded to an ALJ for specific determination whether Grogan had been disabled during the critical period from March 1. Grogan was represented by counsel. A vocational expert was available had the ALJ decided that his opinion had been necessary. Grogan had alleged that he was disabled due to a spinal condition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-3835.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BULL (6/12/2000, NO. 98-3835)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is a case of first impression in this Circuit. The issue on appeal is whether the district court had authority to impose such conditions since they are unrelated to the credit card crime and conviction. We affirm. </P> <P> A pre approved VISA credit card application in another person's name was mistakenly delivered to Bull. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. Bull challenges this condition on the ground that it is not reasonably related to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510175.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was sentenced to eightyfour months imprisonment and five years of supervised release. This is so. Our review is only for plain error. (2) that is plain.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1257.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He heard a voice ask
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1226p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charles asserts that the district court should have dismissed the information against him because the government conceded during plea negotiations that Charles was insane when the acts in question occurred. Charles claims that there was insufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation. We will affirm. Francois was unarmed. Stillman concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002219P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Loren Huss was charged with the first degree murder of his girlfriend. His attorney and the state prosecutor assigned to his case both came to the view that he was insane at the time of the killing. In the belief that the only reasonable outcome was a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity. Huss was not responsible for his acts. The state trial judge announced that he would not enter a judgment because he was unable to find Mr. Huss was sane. It rejected the trial court's characterization of the initial proceeding as a pretrial hearing and held instead that it was indeed a trial at which jeopardy had attached. That double jeopardy principles did not preclude a retrial because the trial court's refusal to enter a judgment was akin to a mistrial that was granted in Mr. We hold that the Iowa Supreme Court's holding was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-2079.html">PINO V. HIGGS<BR></A><BR>
Because they were not state actors. Who was the hospital administrator at LVMC. She is deemed to have waived the challenge on appeal. Despite her admonitions that she was fine. That her family was concerned about her. Weiss determined that Appellant was severely depressed and likely to harm herself. That immediate detention was necessary to prevent such harm. There was no space available at Socorro General and it was decided that since Appellant needed further evaluation she should be taken to LVMC. Deputy Naranjo was called to take Appellant to LVMC. Appellant again insisted that she was not mentally ill and at first refused to go with him. Weiss' certification that Appellant was mentally ill and represented a likelihood of harm to herself. Appellant was admitted into the facility and Deputy Naranjo returned to Socorro. After which the staff there concluded that she was not mentally ill and released her. Appellant's constitutional claims are that Appellees deprived her of her liberty without due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and unreasonably seized her in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-1531.htm">96-1531 -- POOLE V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO. -- 10/07/1997<BR></A><BR>
1291 and we affirm. <p> The facts of this case are set out in the district court's published decision. Because the parties are familiar with them. No material facts are disputed. We must only determine whether the substantive law of the case was correctly applied by the district court. <u>See</u> <u>Kaul v. Arizona law implicitly requires adjudication of civil insanity when the issue is properly raised in insurance coverage litigation. Whether or not criminal insanity was actually raised or litigated in a prior criminal proceeding. A federal appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. <u>See</u> <u>Singleton v. We have examined Mr. Poole's references to the record in support of this argument and none of them address the distinction between Arizona criminal and civil insanity standards which we are asked to examine. <p> Next. A party must show that (1) the issues in the prior and present litigation are identical. (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="156"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF3277920C4FAC4188256D8A005C375C/$file/0130200.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The threat underlying Defendant's conviction was expressed to a telephone operator at a Kaiser Permanente clinic. The threats as to which Defendant was acquitted were communicated. Because the error was harmless. He was suffering from irritability. Including those who participated in various legal proceedings in which Defendant was involved. Eventually Defendant was diagnosed with bipolar type II disorder. She would have a duty to disclose the threats to the intended victims so that they could protect themselves. Dieter to tell her that he had argued with his wife and was extremely upset. Fearing that Defendant was losing his support system. Which Defendant complained was not protecting him adequately) and said that. If a lien against his house was not dropped by the time he met with his lawyer on November 2. Get in his vehicle and have himself some justice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/992047P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
King was living in a trailer behind his brother Dennis's home. Where Dennis was able to seize the gun and throw it in the front yard. The motion was granted. King was examined by Dr. Robb's subsequent report noted that King had previously suffered a gunshot wound to the head: 2 [King] reports that he was shot in the head by his cousin 5 or 7 years ago and was in a hospital in Tulsa for 2 weeks at that time. He reports that he knows when they are coming on and that he may be unconscious for 2 or 3 seconds. The defendant states that when he is driving and has this feeling. He was in the trailer and his brother came. The defendant thought that his brother was joking. The brother then went to the bedroom and came out . . . with a pistol in his hand and was pointing it at the defendant. Robb concluded that King was competent to stand trial. It is my opinion. Head was replaced as King's attorney by Frank Yankoviz. That an argument had erupted because King did not want to be involved.1 Typical of King's testimony is the following passage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2107.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though the text of this law is materially identical to one held constitutional in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. [by] the physician who is to perform the abortion. The district court concluded that the higher cost will reduce by 10% to 13% the number of abortions performed in Indiana. Some of these women will travel to states that do not require two trips. Others will forego an abortion. Some who do have an abortion in Indiana will delay that procedure until the second trimester. The judge also thought that experience in Indiana showing that the demand for abortion did not decline when information was provided on paper or over the telephone implies that the reduction in the number of abortions is attributable to higher cost (a bad reason) rather than to the statutory information (a valid reason). No. 01 2107 Indiana's statute reads as follows: 3 An abortion shall not be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1604OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Linroy Bottoson was convicted of murder in the state courts of Florida and received a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability to review: (1) whether Bottoson's right to a reliable sentencing hearing was violated by the trial judge's instruction that the jury could consider only statutory mitigating evidence. (2) whether Bottoson was denied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.1 We now affirm. Post office was robbed. Money orders were taken. Was last seen leaving the post office on that day at around noon led by a tall African American man. She whispered to bystanders to call the police and to tell them that the man was stealing. Bottoson's wife attempted to cash one of the We granted a certificate of appealability both on whether Bottoson was denied effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of the trial and on whether Bottoson's trial counsel was prevented from providing effective assistance of counsel because of conditions created by statute or state law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64727E1F87230A488256DE4000124DC/$file/0256197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.<strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>I</strong></center> <p> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-6284.htm">98-6284 -- MCVARISH V. NEW HORIZONS COMMUNITY COUNSELING AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES INC. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Donald McVarish appeals from summary judgment granted in favor of defendant appellee New Horizons Community Counseling and Mental Health Services. (2) he is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-2886.man.html">BOTTOSON V. MOORE (11/29/2000, NO. 98-2886)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-2886.man.html">BOTTOSON V. MOORE (11/29/2000, NO. 98-2886)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982886.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Linroy Bottoson was convicted of murder in the state courts of Florida and received a death sentence. We granted a certificate of appealability to review: (1) whether Bottoson's right to a reliable sentencing hearing was violated by the trial judge's instruction that the jury could consider only statutory mitigating evidence. (2) whether Bottoson was denied the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.1 We now affirm. Post office was robbed. Money orders were taken. Was last seen leaving the post office on that day at around noon led by a tall We granted a certificate of appealability both on whether Bottoson was denied effective assistance of counsel in the sentencing phase of the trial and on whether Bottoson's trial counsel was prevented from providing effective assistance of counsel because of conditions created by statute or state law. We will consider these two issues together as part of Bottoson's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BAE292F165E7E9988256C8C00001497/$file/0135566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the second appeal in Jerry Jensen's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages against a contract psychiatrist who signed an order authorizing the detention of Jensen for mental health evaluation pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute § 426.232. Robbins was a state actor and that he was not entitled to qualified immunity. Jensen has conceded that his original arrest and referral for a mental health evaluation were based upon probable cause. 775 76 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (holding under the 4th Amendment that seizure of the mentally ill is analogous to a criminal arrest and must be supported by probable cause). Jensen was arrested after a citizen called the police and reported a man driving erratically and brandishing a pistol. He also concedes that he is not claiming that the Oregon mental health statutes JENSEN v. ROBBINS 5 are unconstitutional. Robbins violated due process by failing to order his release from the mental health detention two days earlier than the day on which Jensen was released.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the FMLA's purported abrogation of Ohio's Eleventh Amendment immunity was unconstitutional as it related to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C16C62E52B94CC4C88256C210059984A/$file/9999030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Including whether the prosecution's failure to reveal evidence that could have been used to impeach a witness had a material effect on the jury's verdict. Who was staying with her. Was the only person in it. He was wearing a dark blue three piece suit and a light blue. Because Patel was occupied. Hayes and Patel were coming out of Patel's bathroom area. Was awakened by knocking at her door. There were wet spots on the suit coat. His hands were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/051780P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\5-10\05-1780 & 3303 MISSOURI PROTECTION & ADVOCACY V. MISSOURI DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Whether that preemption was not clearly established. Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) Director Dorn Schuffman (Schuffman)) who concluded the Missouri law was not preempted. Stat. § 537.035.4 was not preempted. Schuffman is entitled to qualified immunity from Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services's (MOPAS) suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Stating the report was confidential. Thus MOPAS's section 1983 claim was dismissed and MOPAS was not entitled to attorney fees. There is no dispute the records referenced in section 10805(a)(4)(A) include the medical peer review report at issue here. Reports prepared by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1471.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals from the judgment of the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that claimant was not entitled to disability benefits. The application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that claimant was not disabled. The case was remanded. He found that claimant was not disabled. Noting that the record contained reports in which claimant was described as being in no physical distress. The ALJ also relied on the fact that for long periods of time claimant was not in any treatment for his back problems. Claimant would have sought treatment. The ALJ concluded that claimant was not disabled. It decided that vocational expert testimony was required to determine the number of jobs available to claimant given both his exertional and non exertional impairments. The ALJ still concluded that claimant was not disabled. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who determined. That the Secretary's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></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-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6066.htm">01-6066 -- EVANS V. FOGARTY -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR>
Irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied. (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. <p> <u>Kikumura v. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the right to relief is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></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-1.gif" ALT="154"></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-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2201.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rez</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></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-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-5098.htm">01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR>
Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-7105.htm">03-7105 -- BRANUM V. BARNHART -- 08/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Christel Branum appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Social Security Administration's decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. After her application for SSI payments was denied initially and on reconsideration. A de novo hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing. Concluding that plaintiff is not disabled because: (1) she does not suffer from a severe mental impairment. While her back pain and obesity are severe physical impairments. She is capable of performing sedentary work that requires only occasional walking up ramps and stairs and only occasional stooping. The ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of this appeal. <em>Doyal v. We review the ALJ's decision only to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. <em>Doyal</em>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-7105a.htm">03-7105A -- BRANUM V. BARNHART -- 08/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
Is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. After her application for SSI payments was denied initially and on reconsideration. A de novo hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing. Concluding that plaintiff is not disabled because: (1) she does not suffer from a severe mental impairment. While her back pain and obesity are severe physical impairments. She is capable of performing sedentary work that requires only occasional walking up ramps and stairs and only occasional stooping. The ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of this appeal. <em>Doyal v. We review the ALJ's decision only to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. <em>Doyal</em>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946304.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After she called them claiming that her life was in danger. That someone was preparing to kill her. Houseal was similarly disruptive throughout her confinement. Because the City jail was being renovated. She was observed by one of the other inmates smearing vomit on her own face. Examination. and Houseal The was physician's released from response the was hospital The tragic facts of this case were detailed. City Police Chief John Morris was apprised of the pen stabbing incident and ordered an immediate evaluation of Houseal by a mental health professional. Was not arranged until the following morning. When Houseal was interviewed by William Owens. She was observed sticking her head One of the inmates also After County Sheriff in the water and repeatedly falling down. may have seen her consuming fecal matter. Hayes ordered Raley to call the City and have Houseal removed. The City officer who took the call testified that Raley told him that the County jailers were unwilling to reenter the cell until City officers came.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991938.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M.J.) affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's conclusion that Morales is not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and IV of the Social Security Act. Because the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. His application was initially denied on September 12. A supplemental administrative hearing was held on April 9. Finding that Morales was not disabled because he could perform his past relevant work at all times after his alleged disability onset date. Was adopted. Morales was born on December 1. When Morales was twenty six years old. He was diagnosed with a Dependent Personality Disorder2 and polysubstance dependence. Indicate that Morales is depressed. There is evidence in the record of Morales's drug and alcohol dependence. Morales was incarcerated from 1989 to 1990 after a conviction for threatening a police officer. He was examined by a slew of psychologists and psychiatrists. He was first referred to Luis Bird.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-1516.htm">99-1516 -- JENKINS V. COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AT PUEBLO -- 03/30/2000<BR></A><BR>
Jenkins alleges the following: he was arrested under a mistaken name and forced to stand trial for telephone harassment of an ex girlfriend. His speedy trial rights were violated. Of demonstrably unnecessary laboratory tests or studies
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-5223.html">SELSOR V. KAISER<BR></A><BR>
The correct electronic copy is attached. The judge rejected Selsor's constitutional claim of denial of effective assistance of counsel where two public defenders were required by the state trial court to represent the interests of both Selsor and his codefendant Richard Dodson despite timely objections by the attorneys and Selsor that Dodson's and Selsor's interests conflicted. Was robbed. Was shot to death and the other. Was shot and wounded. Selsor and Dodson were arrested for the robbery and shootings. Selsor was charged in state court with robbery with firearms in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1973. Dodson was charged with robbery with firearms. Selsor and Dodson were tried together and were both jointly represented by the same two public defenders from the same office. She was wounded in her right shoulder. Two bullets were left in her neck. That the door to the walk in cooler was closed and that she heard the cooler fan. Morris was the only eyewitness to the crime and her testimony did not implicate Selsor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1751.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees The Class of 48 + 1. Were on brief for intervenors/appellees Donald Pearson. This is the latest BOWNES. During which usurpation the patients' constitutional rights were allegedly violated. The Department of Mental Health shall exercise the responsibility and authority set forth in subparagraph 2 above so that patients at the Treatment Center should have the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of commitment. . . . The law in effect when the consent decree was entered.2 Over time. The defendants do not seek to modify the supplemental consent decree. 4 4 While the residents were attempting to enforce the consent decrees. Forces on the sidelines of the litigation were mobilizing to amend ch. 123A. None of these bills were adopted until 1994. Subject to all other substantive and procedural requirements of the decree.3 Their sole argument was that the Massachusetts legislature's enactment of ch. 489 constituted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0004n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was later taken into custody. Beatty was charged by indictment with one count of bank robbery and one count of transporting a stolen vehicle across state lines. The psychologists stated that Beatty was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/001975P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Daniel Lewis Lee was convicted of murder in aid of racketeering. A sentence of death was imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3594. The defendants were accused of robbing and killing a gun dealer. Lee and Kehoe were convicted by a jury of the three capital counts on May 4. Attorney Paula Casey informed the court on May 10 that she would like to withdraw the death notice in Lee's case but that she was uncertain whether she needed approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) under its death penalty protocol.1 The district court recessed the proceedings until 3 p.m. so that Casey could contact DOJ. Was promulgated by DOJ shortly after passage of the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994. The evaluation form is reviewed by the Attorney General's Review Committee on Capital Cases. Whose members are appointed by the Attorney General. Who then decides whether the government will seek the death penalty. The same procedure is used when a prosecutor wishes to withdraw a previously filed death notice. The Attorney General is the ultimate decisionmaker on the question of whether the government will seek the death penalty or withdraw a previously filed death notice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5139a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Stephen M. Dunham was on the brief for amicus curiae No Fear Coalition in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Chief Judge: Marrita Murphy brought this suit to recover income taxes she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an adminstrative action she brought against her former employer. Her award should have been excluded from her gross income because it was compensation received
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511440.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nash was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release for theft of government property. Nash argues that the district court plainly erred by imposing (1) three conditions of her supervised release that improperly delegated a judicial function to a probation officer and (2) one condition that was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Both of which were specifically recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. Standard Condition Thirteen of her supervised release are an improper delegation of judicial authority because they do not limit the discretion of the probation officer. Nash also contends that Standard Condition Thirteen is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define when and to whom notice is required. Standard Condition Thirteen of her supervised release are improper delegations of judicial function in violation of Article III of the United States Constitution. (2) the error was plain. If these three criteria are met. We have drawn a distinction between the delegation to a probation 4 officer of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-1397.htm">03-1397 -- SHOOK V. EL PASO COUNTY -- 10/18/2004<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied them class certification and dismissed the suit based on its conclusion that under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act the relief the plaintiffs sought was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0315p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hicks was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of aggravated murder. He was sentenced to death. Who was Ghitana's mother and his mother in law. He knew that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-7106.htm">98-7106 -- CHESTER V. APFEL -- 06/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Aurora Chester appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Claiming she was unable to work since April 15. Her requests for benefits were denied initially and on reconsideration. He determined that she did not have a listed impairment or combination of listed impairments. The ALJ determined that the exertional requirements of claimant's past relevant work as a home health care aide (which he described as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-3194.htm">02-3194 -- U.S. V. BARAJAS -- 06/10/2003<BR></A><BR>
Barajas was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Arguing that they<strong> </strong>were imposed without proper presentence notice and that they are not reasonably related to his crime of conviction. Reflected in the PSR was Defendant's history of violent behavior. Although he was not currently required to provide monthly support. At issue on appeal are two conditions imposed on that release: First. The issue is not necessarily waived. Under certain special circumstances we will consider a failure of notice claim even when it is not raised below. Was required to register as a sex offender as a special condition of supervised release. Observing that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0618n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Tammy Lawson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1926.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico affirming the decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that claimant is not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. Determined that claimant did not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments. The ALJ again concluded that claimant was not disabled on the ground that her impairments did not prevent her from performing her past work as a hand knitter. (2) claimant's mental impairment was severe enough to prevent her from performing her past work. We will address each issue separately. 1. Although the notes are largely illegible. It appears that claimant was seen approximately four times in 1984. She was admitted to the health center for observation once in 1985 and once in 1986. Claimant was given medicine and discharged the same day with significant improvement. The evidence that claimant's headaches responded to treatment is adequate to support the Secretary's conclusion that claimant's allegations of pain due to migraines were not credible to the extent alleged.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0839p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The General Assembly declared its purpose in enacting the law was to enable physically disabled but mentally alert adults between the ages of eighteen and fifty nine to live in their own homes and communities. Persons who are physically disabled but not mentally alert are excluded from the program. Easley was a twenty nine year old woman tragically disabled by a catastrophic car accident in 1982. Just as she was to begin her sophomore year at Vassar College. Easley is unable to care for herself and cannot be left alone. Easley is not capable of selecting. Applied for and received attendant care services from Resources for Living Independently (RLI) which was under contract with the PDPW. Which was also under contract with PDPW. At the time of trial plaintiff Howard was a fifty three year old woman with multiple sclerosis and undifferentiated schizophrenia. Howard is immobile from the waist down and. Determined Howard ineligible under the Act because she was not mentally alert. Howard is incapable of selecting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942200A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 1 2 the sentence is changed to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFF91FB11237EF7D8825714F006B4BE6/$file/0499008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Raley was convicted in California state court. Because deliberations that are intrinsic to the jury process are 4150 RALEY v. Because the records in question were not Brady material. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was charged with the kidnap. He also was charged with the kidnap. The petition was stayed pending exhaustion of some claims at the state level and. Was denied on all grounds. The findings of the California Supreme Court are presumed correct. Although the mansion was not generally open to the public. Witnesses who had taken such tours with Petitioner testified that he had asked them to go into certain rooms of the mansion and scream to show that the rooms were soundproof. L.M. was 17 and J.G. was 16. Petitioner was on duty guarding the house. Sounds were heard outPetitioner asks us to grant a Certificate of Appealability on two additional issues. Petitioner said that the police were there with training dogs and that the girls needed to hide or Petitioner would lose his job. He was holding a large knife.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/043783P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Franklin was first involuntarily hospitalized due to mental disease or defect on February 1. He was conditionally released in 1993. His release was revoked later that year. Defendant shall be supervised by the United States probation office and will comply with the standard conditions of the Northern District of Florida. Including that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0483n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
West argues that he should have been classified as disabled under the Social Security Act because (1) he suffers from hypothyroidism and heart palpitations that cause debilitating weakness and fatigue and (2) he meets or equals the requirements of mental retardation as defined under the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments. West indicated that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/99-3016a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Wilma A. Is charged with the murder of two United States Capitol Police Officers and the attempted murder of a third. The prosecution finally withdrew its objection to a finding of incompetency and Weston was com mitted for treatment to restore competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 4241(d) (1994). The order that Weston challenges was never carried out and it is no longer in effect. Russell Weston was indicted for the July 24. To conduct an outpatient psychiatric examination of the defen dant to assist the court in determining whether the defendant was competent to stand trial. Johnson concluded that the defendant was presently incompetent to stand trial. The examination by the Government doctor was to take place while the defendant was at Springfield. The defendant was sent to Springfield on February 3. Was to serve as the court selected examiner. Debra DePrato was re tained as the Government's expert. Weston states that this behavior was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0157p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The administrative law judge found that she was not disabled within the parameters of the Social Security Act. I. Longworth was born January 20. Was fifty one years old at the time she applied for benefits and fifty two at the time of her hearing before the administrative law judge. Her application was denied both initially and on reconsideration. That medication has adequately controlled all of these claimed ailments and she appears to have abandoned any claim for disability based on them. Her claim for disability benefits is now based on two alleged impairments: (1) shoulder pain and (2) mental impairments. She asserts that the administrative law judge's conclusion that she is not disabled is not supported by substantial evidence. This finding was based on reports from Drs. A referral was ultimately made and Dr. Holloway's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002908P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Martin was a resident engineer at DaimlerChrysler's Assembly Plant in Fenton. Martin received poor performance reviews for two consecutive years and was terminated by DaimlerChrysler in June 1998. DaimlerChrysler's stated reasons for terminating Martin were poor performance and attendance. Pain and suffering or any alleged damages and injuries [she] claim[ed] in [her] Complaint to have suffered.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033313p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the Commissioner's ensuing decision is. Early Procedural History Ramirez is a 47 year old divorced mother of two children with no significant work experience. Claiming that she was disabled by asthma. Finding that Ramirez was not disabled by her physical or mental impairments. Which is meant to assess a claimant's ability to perform either the claimant's previous work or other work in the national economy. Ramirez's mental functioning was also in 1998 assessed by Dr. That there was no need to limit Ramirez's interaction with the public or with coworkers. The ALJ posed the following hypothetical question to vocational expert Julie Stratton: I will begin by asking you to assume that we're talking about an individual of Ms. . . . are there jobs in the regional or national economy that the individual could perform? It is significant that neither Dr. The purpose of the hypothetical was to assess Ramirez's residual functional capacity. There were several jobs in the local and national economy that the hypothetical claimant could perform.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have an appeal by an employer from an adverse verdict in favor of an employee (here independent contractor) on his claim of unlawful termination in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Our task is to review the law applied by the District Court on a plenary basis and ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. 2 I. Gregg Sylvester was the Secretary of DHSS from October. Was an independent contractor at the DPC from July 1. These were introduced into evidence at trial as Plaintiff's Exhibits PX 1 through 5. We summarize them below but because they are central to the issues before us they are included verbatim in the Appendix to this opinion. The memorandum charges that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011890.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Linda Freilich is a physician. Freilich's complaint is an attempt to have a federal court supervise what amounts to little more than a physician hospital dispute over hospital policies and the expenditure of hospital resources. Linda Freilich is a Board Certified Internist and Nephrologist who maintained unrestricted hospital privileges at defendant Harford Memorial Hospital (HMH). HMH Medical Staff Bylaws provide that HMH will consider in the reappointment process
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is GRANTED. The published opinion is filed nunc pro tunc to August 23. A copy is attached. Her application was administratively denied initially and on reconsideration. Salazar was thirty five years old. She was the divorced mother of three children. There was also documentation concerning numerous suicide gestures. (1) The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. <hr> In a decision dated April 14. Medical Record The earliest medical report in the record is from January 24. Salazar was seen by a clinical therapist at the Health Centers of Northern New Mexico (HCNNM). Salazar was treated at St. The emergency room physician noted that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6752.man.html">THOMPSON V. NAGLE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Thompson v. Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on the part of the defendant.<p> <p> Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse.<p> <p> The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. Leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain.<p> <p> While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/983389P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
George Hedges appeals the district court's2 grant of summary judgment to appellee George Randy Poletis wherein the court held that Poletis is entitled to qualified immunity for his role in the civil commitment of Mr. Was involuntarily committed to a mental institution on August 18. Were engaged in an ongoing neighborhood feud. Lake Lotawana police were aware of the situation as both parties made frequent calls reporting one another for alleged nuisances. Enclosed with that letter was a copy of a letter written by Hedges' psychiatrist. That he was taking numerous psychotropic medications. The general impression of the reporting officers was that Hedges was potentially dangerous. Poletis stated that he was aware of the situation and would obtain the affidavits. He was released from the mental health center on August 21. Hedges alleged that Poletis deliberately provided false information to Wells and sought to commit Hedges because he was homosexual. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Poletis on the issue of qualified immunity on August 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-6752.man.html">THOMPSON V. NAGLE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Thompson v. Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Cindy noticed no unusual behavior on the part of the defendant.<p> <p> Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse.<p> <p> The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. Leaving Robin Balarzs on Green Mountain.<p> <p> While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966752.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Some of the atrocities were against her corpse. The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights. Robin's battered body was found. Her parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966752.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was engaged to marry David Roberts. David Roberts was absent from Huntsville due to military service. Defendant was aware of this absence. The parents and the child were also out of town. Robin and her friend Cindy McElroy were at the residence. Defendant was absent without leave from the Navy and had need for money and goods which he could convert to cash. Robin Balarzs died during her ordeal. atrocities were against her corpse. Some of the The defendant realized that left in the Balarzs home were items which would reveal his crimes. While defendant was attempting to re enter the Balarzs home David Roberts returned. David recalled seeing defendant's vehicle parked near the residence and an alert was dispatched on defendant by radio. At that time it was in connection with a missing person report. Defendant's vehicle was dirty and damaged and defendant had what appeared to be blood and mud about his person. Defendant was properly advised of his constitutional rights. Robin's battered body was found. Her parents and David Roberts were advised that she was dead.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-3425.man.html">GLOCK V. MOORE (11/10/1999, NO. 98-3425)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner argues that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Were charged in Florida with the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. 95 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).</P> <P> The facts surrounding Glock's arrest and trial have been developed extensively in <EM>Glock v. Glock was found guilty of all three offenses. That he was more of a follower than a leader. Thus she doubted that his participation in the crime was voluntary. That his early childhood was characterized by a lack of parental guidance.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-3425.man.html">GLOCK V. MOORE (11/10/1999, NO. 98-3425)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner argues that he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Were charged in Florida with the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. 95 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).</P> <P> The facts surrounding Glock's arrest and trial have been developed extensively in <EM>Glock v. Glock was found guilty of all three offenses. That he was more of a follower than a leader. Thus she doubted that his participation in the crime was voluntary. That his early childhood was characterized by a lack of parental guidance.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1286.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP were on brief for appellant Katherine A. Toomey & Lehane were on brief for appellee. Jane Doe was the founder. Doe was afflicted by an increased sense of disquiet and depression. Formed some thoughts of suicide (the clinical phrase is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062787P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Donald Winters (whom we will refer to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its outpatient mental health clinic in central Milwaukee is overcrowded. Because the structure is in a business zone. A new hearing was held. The outcome was the same. Because the Board concluded that WCS could have purchased or leased space elsewhere. More than 785 acres of land within WCS's preferred area for operating the mental health clinic are zoned for medical clinics. No deviation from Milwaukee's normal rules would have been required to use any of these sites. A special use permit was inappropriate because a medical clinic at the site could undermine a redevelopment plan that called for a commercial enterprise to be situated there. There are lots of specific ones. There is a general accommodation rule in Title III. That the legal rules are identical. (b) the building WCS purchased was its leastcost option. WCS is strapped for cash and can do more for its clients if it can situate facilities where the benefit/cost ratio is highest. Getting from that proposition to a legal rule that Milwaukee must permit WCS its preferred location is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C08FBAF18B2E058E88256C31005962CE/$file/0116833.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Benson contends that while she was in jail before and during her trial. Who admitted she was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time. Benson was arrested. The jail staff requested the medical and mental health staff to interview Benson because of the nature of her crime and because she was visibly upset at the time of her detention. A mental health counselor also conducted a psychiatric assessment to determine whether there was a need for psychiatric services and psychotropic drug treatment.1 At the concluThe term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948481.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A local city government is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8695945B7C6F6B5882570AD0051320A/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. Hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as stu 15064 FIELDS v. We hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. I. Kristi Seymour volunteered as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B71CDFE69002509882571AF0057B8CF/$file/0516881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief for the appellee. Rose was court martialed. He was paroled in 1990. He was returned to federal prison for five years and was released in 1996. Committing a lewd act on a seven year old girl he was babysitting. He was convicted in state court of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14 and was sentenced to a term of three years in state prison. Rose's parole was revoked based on charges that he had contact with a minor. Which was tried to a California Superior Court jury. Which the trial court declined to give: In order to find that [Rose] is a Sexually Violent Predator. [the State] must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [Rose] is currently suffering from a mental condition that renders him dangerous beyond his control. (2) has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes him a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he will engage in sexually violent predatory criminal behavior. The jury concluded that Rose was a sexually violent predator within the meaning of the SVPA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1589.01A">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-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/005.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 4 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-2252.htm">01-2252 -- HACEESA V. U.S. -- 10/24/2002<BR></A><BR>
Haceesa was sent home that night. He was dead. <p> Only after his death was Haceesa's disease diagnosed correctly: he died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Haceesa was a Navajo Indian. The hospital where he was first seen on April 25
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/023068P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rasheeda Kambra Jones applied for and was denied Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The denial was based on The Hon. Jones was not disabled because. She did not have the kind of additional impairment necessary to qualify her for the listing claimed. We hold that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. I. This Court reviews a decision by an ALJ
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5014.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Plaintiff's applications for benefits were denied initially and on reconsideration. A de novo hearing was held in October 1999 before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Concluding that plaintiff was not disabled because: (1) although plaintiff's claimed impairments are severe impairments which prevented him from performing his past relevant work. Subject to the limitations that: (a) he is unable to climb ropes. (b) he is unable to work in environments of unprotected heights or dangerous moving machinery parts. Plaintiff was capable of performing other jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy. The ALJ's decision is the Commissioner's final decision for purposes of this appeal. See Doyal v. (1) The administrative record is contained in Volumes I and II of plaintiff's Appendix. The pages of the record are numbered 5 364. The pages containing the pleadings and other documents are numbered P1 P72.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Introduction Plaintiff/appellant Deborah Meyer was involuntarily committed over a weekend to Oklahoma's Western State Psychiatric Center. Against various officials and two private citizens who were involved in the affair. Defendants/appellees are the Board of County Commissioners of Harper County. Individually.(1) (1) The brief of plaintiff/appellant informs us that several parties were dismissed as a result of settlement efforts on appeal: Crystal Stoddard. No mention is made in the briefs of the disposition of the claims against defendants Erwin and Snell. It appears they are proper appellees because of plaintiff's effort to reinstate her state law claims. The Board of County Commissioners) was not part of her appeal. We accept this concession and will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County. <hr> The district judge granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in favor of all defendants (except that on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claims the district court did not reach the qualified immunity issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR>
The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-6541.opa.html">RODGERS V. HORSLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rodgers v. We are required to view the facts. Which are drawn from the pleadings. They are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/499809F0EDCA759688256C44007C2888/$file/0110578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
James Carbullido was involved in a series of arsons over an approximately one year period. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a bench trial. It turned out that he was 4 never committed. Was unconditionally released. Carbullido argued that relitigation of the issue of his sanity was precluded by the earlier adjudication. The vandalism and fires were attempts to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3173.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The severity prong (B) of Listing 12.05 is not met. That making factual determinations on the validity of an IQ score is within the province of an ALJ and will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and affirm. He claimed that he was disabled because he had pain from a prior gunshot wound. His claim was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels. The ALJ ruled that Lax was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Which was denied. Lax applied for SSI.(1) (1) While Lax's first claim for SSD was pending. His claim for SSI was denied initially and on reconsideration. His SSI claim was subsequently combined with his SSDclaim. <hr> In September of 2001. Did not finish the eleventh grade because he was incarcerated for battery.(2) He testified at his first administrative hearing that he took special education classes through all levels of his schooling and received mostly Ds and Fs. His educational records confirm his grades and it appears he was enrolled in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR>
The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/93-6541.opa.html">RODGERS V. HORSLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rodgers v. We are required to view the facts. Which are drawn from the pleadings. They are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945029.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.1 The information charging Delguidice in the instant case was filed June 1. Delguidice was tried and convicted in an unrelated criminal case (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945029.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. A second person was struck during the course of this melee. Which resulted in the jury finding Delguidice guilty as to the 1 Delguidice in the instant case was filed June 1. Delguidice was tried and convicted in an unrelated criminal case (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2427.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sheketoff with whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief for petitioner. Was on brief for respondent. This is an appeal by Everard Genius from the district court's order denying Genius's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Everard was convicted of first degree murder in state court in 1980 and is currently serving a life sentence for that crime. Genius who was married at the time stabbed to death his paramour. He also claimed that he was compelled to commit the murder by a voodoo curse that his wife had placed upon him. There is no dispute that Genius did in fact kill Nesbitt. The only issue is whether an insanity defense should have been pursued more vigorously. Genius was examined by Dr. Genius was then treated for approximately two months with antidepressant medication. Koson examined Genius again and found the depression had lifted and that Genius was competent. Koson found
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-4282.htm">03-4282 -- U.S. V. VISINAIZ -- 04/28/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9835.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They selected a Subway 1 Because Joseph's federal habeas petition was filed after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. We cannot grant habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court decision was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314784.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was incarcerated at the Monroe County Detention Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the first time we have had occasion to construe the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></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-1.gif" ALT="146"></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-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DC950FE0C93BECDB88256E24007768A4/$file/0230209.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).1 Williams was sentenced in June 2002 to fifteen months in prison amounting to time served as he had been in federal custody since March 2000 and to three years of supervised release. He does not have the option not to take medication if it is prescribed by a physician treating him during the period of his supervised release. All statutory references are to 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1203.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hanson & DeTroy were on briefs for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. Are drawn from the presentence report. Gill was employed part time at the Bethel Area Health Center in Bethel. That he possessed a doctoral degree in psychology and was licensed as a psychologist or counselor under Maine law. Gill was not licensed and had never received an advanced degree in either psychology or counseling. The total value of the payments claimed from these entities was over $37. All charges were consolidated for sentencing. It is these two adjustments that are the sole subjects of Gill's appeal from his sentence. Gill was sentenced under the November 1995 edition of the guidelines. References are to that version unless otherwise specified. The standard of review in such a case is simple. In the standard formulation: the district court's factual findings are respected unless clearly erroneous. The determinations of law are reviewed de novo. The application of a legal standard to undisputed facts is also an issue of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1868.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Claimant is presently 30 years old. Was employed as an office worker at various companies between 1982 and 1991. She also asserted that her left leg was particularly affected and that she could not move as she used to.1 After claimant's initial application was denied. She filed a request for reconsideration which alleged that she was disabled due to an emotional condition in addition to her physical ailments. The request was denied. That she did not have a medically determinable mental impairment or any significant mental limitations. He also found that her allegations of pain and other symptoms were not fully supported by the objective medical evidence and that her subjective complaints thus 2. We further note that claimant's list of medications indicated that she was not taking them because she was pregnant. He also found that her RFC was not significantly compromised by her nonexertional limitations. The record discloses that claimant sustained whiplash like injuries after her car was hit by a Mack truck while she was en route to work on September 11.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5134a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were David H. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. Arguing he did not waive the psychotherapistpatient privilege and therefore his communications with his therapist are privileged and not discoverable. Aron was served with the subpoena for information about Koch's psychotherapy. The judge added that Koch's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9732.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OFFICE OF THE *This appeal was heard by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 46(d) (West 1993). Circuit Judge: Dwayne Allen Wright was found guilty by a Virginia jury of (1) the murder of Saba Tekle during the commission of a robbery. I. The following facts are those recited by the Virginia Supreme Court in Wright v. Was in the apartment and heard Tekle calling to her and her mother from outside the apartment. The medical examiner opined that Tekle's death was caused by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></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-1.gif" ALT="145"></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-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994206.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the spelling of counsel's name is corrected to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012663P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Simmons was convicted in a single trial of two counts of capital murder following the deaths of Leonora McClendon and Cheri Johnson. The Missouri Supreme court then overturned the two convictions on the grounds that the murder charges should not have been tried together. Simmons was tried separately for both murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death after each trial. Although these two appeals were filed separately and heard back to back by this court. We have consolidated the discussion of Simmons's claims in a single opinion. 2 1 State v. DISCUSSION Our consideration of Simmons's appeals is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp.1998). The writ may issue only if . . . the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) `was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law. A federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct The facts underlying Simmons's convictions are discussed extensively in the opinions of the Missouri Supreme Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2055.htm">03-2055 -- SIPP V. UNUM PROVIDENT CORP. -- 08/20/2004<BR></A><BR>
Sipp's application for benefits was initially approved. UNUM informed him that his benefits would be terminated because he was no longer considered disabled. His last position was that of Senior Pastor in a New Jersey congregation and Chaplain for the Union County Sheriff's Office. This type of policy is known as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-6075.htm">99-6075 -- PLANTZ V. MASSIE -- 06/09/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1083p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) that removal is proper under the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1739p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate 2. This case was referred by the district court to the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The report and recommendation was adopted by the district court. Victorelli was employed as a Central Service Technician by Shadyside Hospital in Pittsburgh. She was terminated from her employment with Shadyside following a request for sick leave on July 29. Lattanzio was unable to speak with Victorelli at that time and suggested she call again at approximately 1:30 p.m. Adoki's opinion was that Victorelli was suffering from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2349.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Claimant was born on June 16. She was age fifty four. Claimant filed an application for benefits alleging that she is disabled by a nervous condition. She was represented by an attorney. She gets lost when she is outside the home unescorted. She also testified that she has back pain which forces her to depend upon her husband for most chores and is only relieved when she lies down. She testified that she cannot sit for more than one half hour at should only have considered the period after May 14. At the time she was last insured. Had various moderate mental limitations and was capable of light work. With the restriction that she needed to be able to alternate positions at will.2 These mental limitations included moderate limitations in her capacity to understand. He then identified three jobs that claimant could have performed final examiner in the electronics industry. Permit alternation of positions at will. The hypothetical also assumed that claimant was age forty nine at onset of her alleged disabilities and age fifty four on her last insured date.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1739p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003746P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An SAT is a student assistance team. An MDT is responsible for determining if a child has a verified disability under the regulations and for developing and implementing an individual education plan to ensure that child receives an appropriate education. She was not verified as having a disability sufficient to qualify her for the provision of special education services under Nebraska's regulations. Another MDT report concluded that Sadonya was disabled by an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/90-3525.man.html">BUENOANO V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buenoano v. Buenoano was convicted in Orange County. This appeal is from the district court's denial of relief on her first 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Michael Woods was terminated by DaimlerChrysler Corporation for unexcused absences from work. Contending that Woods had not established a prima facie case under the Act and that his claim was untimely under a clause in their employment agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of DaimlerChrysler. I. In June 1999 Michael Woods was hired as an Industrial Engineering Supervisor at DaimlerChrysler's North Assembly Plant in Fenton. Woods was transferred to a lower ranked leader position in the assembly department and after that to Production Facilitator. The last was Area Manager Sheila Franklin. Sheila Franklin was working with some production facilitators to solve a problem with the assembly line when she noticed that Woods was not on the production floor. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 22 1 employee is not to leave his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/90-3525.man.html">BUENOANO V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buenoano v. Buenoano was convicted in Orange County. This appeal is from the district court's denial of relief on her first 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1468p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree that Olson did not demonstrate that he was disabled or had a record of impairment under the ADA. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Olson was hospitalized for four months for depression. GE told Olson that he was being laid off along with hundreds of others as part of a general reduction in force necessitated by adverse business conditions. Olson was formally laid off. A former co worker told Olson that the position of Quality Assurance Specialist was opening at GE's East Windsor. The person hired as QA Specialist would report to Sansoni who was still the Manager of Parts Engineering. Olson was interested and telephoned Sansoni. The application was forwarded to Amy Levinson Close. Olson was one of four applicants. GE contends that because Sansoni already knew Olson and was familiar with his work. That Sansoni was referring to Olson's 1991 hospitalization for depression. Sansoni discussed the medication Olson was taking. That the doctors had informed him that the most likely diagnosis was simply a sleep disorder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011102.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking primarily reimbursement of monies paid to Prudential pursuant to a subrogation term in its policy that was issued as an employee benefit plan. Singh's complaint alleged that the subrogation term was illegal under the provisions of the Maryland Health Maintenance Organization Act (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0379p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He asserts that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Claiming that he is exempt from the death penalty because he is mentally retarded. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that Bowling procedurally defaulted his claim that he is mentally retarded because he could have asserted such a claim at trial given that Kentucky had in place at that time a statute prohibiting the execution of the mentally retarded. It further determined that Bowling could not make a prima facie showing that he is mentally retarded because his I.Q. scores were higher than what Kentucky law considers to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/001514.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a five level upward departure from the fraud sentencing guideline. We find no abuse of discretion and will therefore affir m. The total loss attributable to Jarvis for both schemes is $883. The total number of victims was 27.1 After discounting the monies returned to investors. There were 31 separate investments. The total number of victims was 27. 2 $316. No victim of the frauds who received money back was paid directly from funds of Jarvis or Penn Capital. The repayments were derived from other fraudulently obtained funds originating from other defrauded investors. S 3A1.1 might be applicable.2 A sentencing hearing was held on April 13 and 27. During which evidence relating to victim impact was obtained. 000) while knowing that their only son was dying of cancer . Jarvis had promised a 9% r eturn on his investment and assured him that no loss was possible because the investment was guaranteed by the state. Who at the time was 79 years old. Which was used in the PSR. 3 Additionally.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-11116.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ (3/12/2003, NO. 02-11116)<BR></A><BR>
Raul Gomez was federally indicted for conspiracy to commit Medicare Fraud. Gomez pleaded guilty to two counts of the indictment and was eventually sentenced to 55 months' imprisonment. A PSI was prepared and filed. To which Gomez filed his objections.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-6435.htm">97-6435 -- BRYSON V. WARD -- 08/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
Fourteenth Amendments when it determined he was competent to stand trial. BACKGROUND <p> Bryson first met his co defendant Marilyn Plantz in late 1987 or early 1988 when he was sixteen and she was in her late twenties and married. McKimble was a teenager. McKimble knew that Bryson and Plantz were romantically involved. Plantz was abusive and that she wanted to kill him to obtain life insurance proceeds. Third suggestion was that Bryson and McKimble push Mr. None of these schemes was carried out. <p> On August 17. One of Marilyn Plantz's schemes was carried further but ultimately failed. They were unable to carry out the plan because Mr. Farris was arrested for unrelated reasons. <p> On August 25. McKimble were together. Plantz was beaten so badly. Plantz was insured for approximately $299. Plantz was alive. McKimble said that he had expected to be paid for the murder. <p> Bryson was interviewed by police detectives two times after the murder. PROCEDURAL HISTORY <p> Bryson was found guilty of first degree murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6343.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/971353P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Callahan was appointed to serve as the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration effective March 1. Spradling is a forty seven year old man with a high school education. Spradling claimed that he was unable to work because of a back injury. Which was held on June 28. Found that Spradling was not disabled. Spradling did not have an impairment or combination of impairments equivalent to a listed impairment. The ALJ further found that although Spradling was unable to perform his past relevant work as a carpenter. He had a residual functional capacity to perform at least sedentary work and therefore was not disabled. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 2 Heckler. The ALJ found that Spradling's subjective allegations of disabling pain were not credible. We will uphold the Commissioner's determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B22A82A48903C1588256E5A00707A33/$file/9999029.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the circumstances in which a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. I James Richard Odle was tried and convicted in 1983 of two first degree murders and sentenced to death. He is subject to AEDPA's procedural requirement that he obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA). 1603 (2000).2 Because Odle filed his appeal before Slack was decided.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054353p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Directions and the individual plaintiffs' appeal is before us. Properly prescribed methadone is not intoxicating or sedating. The medication is taken orally and it suppresses narcotic withdrawal for 24 to 36 hours. Patients are able to perceive pain and have emotional reactions. Craving is a major reason for relapse. It has been found that normal street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria. Methadone is medically safe even when used continuously for 10 years or more. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (of the Executive Office of the President) provides further information on methadone treatment: Background Information Methadone is a rigorously well tested medication that is safe and efficacious for the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependence. Is freed from the uncontrolled. Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. It is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. The operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981785.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It is contended on Stewart's behalf that the ALJ failed to review medical testimony from two doctors. Mental health problems were insufficient to render the plaintiff incapable of useful light work is supported by substantial evidence. I. Stewart was 51 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision on December 20. Stewart testified that her last full time job was as a sewing machine operator in 1987. The work was not complicated. Was performed in a seated position. She was not required to interact with others. Was allowed to talk to coworkers as long as the work was done. The ALJ determined that Stewart was insured only through December 31. Barry Barker was Stewart's primary physician throughout all times relevant to the present appeal. Barker were primarily for pain and swelling. Barker is not the only doctor who has evaluated Stewart. This examination was conducted pursuant to Stewart's application for services through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-11116.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ (3/12/2003, NO. 02-11116)<BR></A><BR>
Raul Gomez was federally indicted for conspiracy to commit Medicare Fraud. Gomez pleaded guilty to two counts of the indictment and was eventually sentenced to 55 months' imprisonment. A PSI was prepared and filed. To which Gomez filed his objections.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-1418.htm">01-1418 -- AGUILAR V. BASIN RESOURCES INC. -- 09/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Appellees are the International Union. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D21B265477505FC6882569EB00625430/$file/9999029.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the circumstances in which a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine his competency to stand trial. I James Richard Odle was tried and convicted in 1983 of two first degree murders and sentenced to death. He is subject to AEDPA's procedural requirement that he obtain a Certificate of Appealability (COA). 1603 (2000).2 Because Odle filed his appeal before Slack was decided.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6343.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-4106.htm">98-4106 -- KIMBER V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Plan is managed and self funded by Thiokol and is subject to the requirements of ERISA. John Hancock Managed Care Group (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-1379.htm">97-1379 -- RUBIDOUX V. COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AT PUEBLO -- 04/12/1999<BR></A><BR>
Our analysis leads to the conclusion this appeal is controlled by <em><strong>Burlington Industries. Both decided by the Supreme Court after this case was tried. CATC was divided into five residential treatment units called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-2175.htm">99-2175 -- WAKELAND V. MONTANO -- 01/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
Who were in some way involved in her arrest. Many of her allegations contained in her ninety eight page complaint and other papers are irrelevant to the analysis of her claims. Then will present any other relevant and more specific allegations in our analysis of her claims. <p> This case ultimately arises from a dispute between plaintiff and her next door neighbors. Called the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office to report that plaintiff was interfering with the construction of the home. Officers Larry Martinez and Vince Crespin were dispatched to handle the complaint. Plaintiff was arrested for restricting. These charges were eventually dropped. <p> In October 1994. The Mannicks complained to the Sheriff's Office that plaintiff was flashing her car lights into their residence. Corporal John Lucero and Officer Dennis O'Brien were dispatched to the site. The two officers concluded that she was suffering from a mental disorder and could be a danger to herself or others. Which is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1691p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kenneth McBroom pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Finding that McBroom was able. The district court concluded that McBroom was ineligible for a downward departure. We believe that the district court could have considered the possibility that McBroom suffered from a volitional impairment which prevented him from controlling his behavior or conforming it to the law. We will. McBroom detailed his abusive childhood in an uncontradicted affidavit submitted to the district court: All outward appearances of my family were positive but deceiving. . . . I have vague recollections of being a young boy and having him bathe me. I suppose I was four or five at the time. I have clear memories of the abuse from about the age of ten onward. . . . There were also a few instances in which my father took Polaroid pictures of me naked. . . . Until I was 15 years old. 3 McBroom Aff. McBroom attended law school and was married. He was asked to testify at his father's trial on charges that his father sexually molested a neighbor's son.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1281.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mann with whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for the United States. Lawrence Schneider was convicted on multiple counts of mail and wire fraud and now appeals. What Schneider did was largely undisputed at trial. Although his state of mind was very much in dispute. Schneider was under financial pressure and unable to pay his bills. Schneider was indicted and charged with six counts of wire fraud and three counts of mail fraud based on his use of such facilities in the conduct of his scheme. 18 U.S.C. 1343. The government's theory of fraud was that Schneider never intended to pay for the goods but ordered them with the aim of reselling them immediately and bilking the sellers. Which was untrue. Argued that he did not have the requisite specific intent to defraud.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/042427P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the record did not show the condition was warranted and that the district court improperly delegated its authority to the probation officer by allowing the probation officer to determine what mental health services would be required. Because Conelly was initially sentenced on February 19. His sentence was subsequently reduced below the stipulated term. A defendant's explicit and voluntary stipulation to a particular sentence will ordinarily preclude him from challenging the sentence on appeal. Conelly would have to show a reasonable probability. That he would have received a more favorable sentence but for the district court's error in applying the guidelines as mandatory. Conelly argues that the district court might have sentenced him to a lower sentence because he was a drug addict. Nothing in the record suggests that this factor would have caused the district court to disregard the stipulated prison term. Conelly argues that there was no evidence supporting the imposition of such a condition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5012.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The magistrate judge sentenced her to five years' probation and ordered her to participate in a program of mental health treatment. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Ms. Hopson now argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in ordering mental health treatment because that condition of probation and the attendant deprivation of liberty were not reasonably related to the offense of conviction or any other relevant sentencing factor. Hopson was required to report her income to the government. 757 in federal funds to which she was not entitled. Nears is currently unemployed and was released from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in October 2005 on a drug conviction. Hopson is the victim. Two of these convictions were in the presence of minor children. She ultimately was placed . . . at the Collinsville Youth Center in Collinsville. Hopson has no history of alcohol or drug abuse and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9720.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to determine whether the district court erred in denying Cardwell an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We consider whether his death sentence was rendered constitutionally infirm by trial counsel's failure to develop and present expert testimony regarding Cardwell's mental health. I The facts relating to Cardwell's murder of fifteen year old Anthony Brown have been fully set forth by the Virginia Supreme Court in Cardwell v. The traitorous Poindexter then called Cardwell to advise him that the drugs were strapped to the inside of Brown's leg. Brown was then forced at gunpoint to lie face down on the floor in the back seat of Poindexter's car. Two gunshots were fired. Brown's decomposed body was discovered in the woods approximately two months later. Cardwell was indicted in the Circuit Court for Henrico County. Cardwell was further charged with abduction. Trial was scheduled to commence on July 19. Only to discover that he was on vacation and would not return until August 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021091.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand because we find that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert by the administrative law judge did not incorporate all of Burns' limitations. He is fifty one years old and has not acquired any transferable vocational skills. Burns alleged that he was unable to work due to a heart condition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1780.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Valentin was not disabled. Is amenable to treatment). There is no evidence in the record to support that claim. In June 1988 (that is. Valentin was examined by Dr. More striking was Dr. Valentin was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/94-5029.man.html">DELGUIDICE V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Delguidice v. Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416751.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The car was in gear and still running. Agent Mitchell observed that the driver's side window was shattered and part of the glass was inside the car on the front seat. The windshield was cracked. The passenger window was rolled down. Who was in the driver's seat. Was slumped over Jones. The bullet was lying on the vent. There was also a bullet resting on the driver's door where the glass was shattered. Agent Mitchell stated that there was blood all over the interior of the vehicle. Was at her house when Agent Tolbert arrived. Osborne also told Agent Tolbert that the only contact he had with Seaborne was several days earlier when he was trying to change the title on Jones's motorcycle. Osborne explained that the blood under his cuticles was the result of a hangnail. He also told police that his fingerprints could be on the car in which the victims were found because he had ridden in the car a week earlier when he went to WalMart. Osborne provided police with the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2088.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that claimant was not entitled to disability benefits. I. Claimant was injured at work when he tried to lift a steel beam. He was given a course of physical therapy which left him feeling worse. Stand or walk for any length of time and he is constantly changing position. He is irritable and noises bother him. He credited claimant's allegations of pain to the extent that claimant was precluded from engaging in strenuous work related activities. The ALJ used Rule 201.25 as a framework to conclude that claimant was not disabled. 1988 special medical report stated that claimant's back was well and there was no muscle spasm. Claimant's range of motion was normal and there were no neurological deficits. There still was no significant muscle spasm and claimant could walk without difficulty. When claimant was discharged from the SIF in April 1989. There was normal strength in all muscles and no motor reflex or sensory disturbances. Claimant's gait and posture were normal. Claimant was again examined by a consulting neurologist.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66F32EE4F51E77F988256F150075272B/$file/0199014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. The mandate shall not issue until it is determined whether. Circuit Judge: Larry David Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. As they were driving. She first tried to end his advances by telling him she was a lesbian. She was finally able to persuade him to stop by telling him that she would have sex with him in a motel in town. While Davis was pumping gas. Saying that she was returning to New York within days. When asked what he was doing. It was there that he met Dawn Holman. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the store smoking marijuana when a man. That woman was Dawn Holman. Holman's body was found around 5 a.m. by a greenskeeper at a nearby golf course. Her car was partially in a ditch about 265 feet from her body. The front passenger door was heavily damaged. Appeared to have hit a nearby telephone pole. The medical examiner testified that Holman's body showed evidence of sexual assault: her body was found with her bra pulled down below her chest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/94-5029.man.html">DELGUIDICE V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Delguidice v. Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1003.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We add only the following comments. 1) Ready is correct that the state courts' conclusion on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a factual finding entitled to a presumption of correctness pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). He is correct that the state courts' conclusion as to the voluntariness of his plea is also not a factual finding entitled to that presumption. The findings of fact made by the state courts in the course of deciding these issues are entitled to the statutory presumption of correctness evidenced in 2254(d). Ready has argued that his counsel was ineffective and his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel failed to pursue. Or inform him (and he was otherwise unaware) of. The state courts found that the proffered affidavits from therapists were conclusory. This is a factual issue determined after a hearing on the merits and thus entitled to the presumption of correctness. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).1 Ready has not shown that that factual determination was erroneous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023627u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and we have jurisdiction over Beasich's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse the district cour |
