Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Your query mental+health returned 4844 results.

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

	00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003 INTRODUCTION Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car. Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body. Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder.
	OPINION/ORDER It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider.
	OPINION/ORDER That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an
	OPINION/ORDER Monroe Counties (
	OPINION/ORDER 1991 is amended as follows: On page 23. Insert
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265) Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
	CAMPBELL V. SIKES (3/19/1999, NO. 98-8265) Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff Appellant Kimberly Campbell was transferred to the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution (
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. Facts as Recited by the Ohio Supreme Court Lundgren's Background Lundgren was born in Missouri and raised in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (
	OPINION/ORDER 000 and punitive damages against CMS totaling $1.5 million were awarded. The judge also specifically found that the trial testimony
	OPINION/ORDER 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 (
	OPINION/ORDER Department of Veterans Affairs (
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue is whether the hospital violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (
	JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563) 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).
	DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > 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-8.gif" ALT="805"></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-8.gif" ALT="805"></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-8.gif" ALT="803"></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-8.gif" ALT="801"></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-7.gif" ALT="799"></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-7.gif" ALT="794"></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-7.gif" ALT="790"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="787"></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-7.gif" ALT="783"></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-7.gif" ALT="779"></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-7.gif" ALT="776"></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-7.gif" ALT="776"></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-7.gif" ALT="772"></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-7.gif" ALT="772"></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-7.gif" ALT="767"></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-7.gif" ALT="767"></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-7.gif" ALT="767"></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-7.gif" ALT="767"></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-7.gif" ALT="765"></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 $60 from the cash drawer and told him that was all of the money on the premises. The victim responded that there was no more money. Appellant was arrested after allegedly committing an assault and robbery at the Ohio Citizens Bank. Was arraigned in the Toledo Municipal Court for the assault and robbery at the bank. The public defender was aware that appellant was a suspect in the Manning murder. Appellant was taken to St. Appellant was released from the hospital and taken to the Toledo Police Detective Bureau where he was questioned by Detective James Lagger and Detective Sergeant Przeslawski. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3405.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Something is rotten in the Village of Alsip. The Alsip Chief of Police is Kenneth Wood. David Snooks is the department's Field Operations Commander. At the time this suit was filed. They attempted to remove him from his post on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The events overlap in time and we will describe them separately for clarity. We credit McGreal's version of the facts because he is the party opposing judgment. He was on routine patrol late one night in June 1995 when he noticed a number of cars in the parking lot of the Alsip Elk's Club in apparent violation of the local closing time ordinance. The machines themselves are not illegal but using them to gamble is No. 02 3405 3 prohibited. The video poker machines were owned by a company called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7DCEF53D22C65A5882570AD0050FD8E/$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-7.gif" ALT="754"></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-7.gif" ALT="754"></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-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1192B66BCDB5B74188256F32007BFD62/$file/9799017o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: (1) The first full paragraph at slip op. 1866 is deleted. (2) The first sentence of the second paragraph at slip op. at 1866 is deleted. (3) The phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0047p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this § 1983 action is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to 15 Michigan corrections officers on duty at various points during the isolation. Here is what happened during the last six days of the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility's custody over Jeffrey Clark. Was on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36D3991E0771F37D88256CE1005F60E7/$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-7.gif" ALT="729"></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-7.gif" ALT="729"></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-7.gif" ALT="723"></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-7.gif" ALT="723"></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-7.gif" ALT="720"></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-7.gif" ALT="716"></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-7.gif" ALT="716"></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-7.gif" ALT="716"></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-7.gif" ALT="714"></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-7.gif" ALT="712"></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-7.gif" ALT="712"></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-7.gif" ALT="709"></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-7.gif" ALT="709"></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-7.gif" ALT="709"></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-7.gif" ALT="707"></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-7.gif" ALT="705"></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-7.gif" ALT="705"></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-7.gif" ALT="703"></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-7.gif" ALT="703"></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-7.gif" ALT="703"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="698"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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="696"></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-6.gif" ALT="696"></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="694"></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-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/86683EF058F53A06882571FB0055198B/$file/0399006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The factual history of this case was detailed in our earlier opinion. Correll was convicted by an Arizona jury in 1984 of first degree murder. He was sentenced to 17132 CORRELL v. His conviction was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court. The district court determined that twenty six of Correll's claims were procedurally barred. We affirmed all of the district court's order except as to Correll's contention that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. RYAN 17133 sentencing was deficient. Because Correll's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4027.opn.html">DOE V. STINCER (5/4/1999, NO. 98-4027)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6370802B473DC4D6882572A6008183A3/$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-6.gif" ALT="689"></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-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8E2AFA2EDD6DBA788257153007E7DCA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is AMENDED by deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with the following sentence: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4027.opn.html">DOE V. STINCER (5/4/1999, NO. 98-4027)<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2C5308C349848038825713F000874AA/$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-6.gif" ALT="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="687"></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-6.gif" ALT="685"></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-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Delete from close of the opinion. Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C425EBCCACE9AA2A88256B530000089D/$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-6.gif" ALT="683"></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-6.gif" ALT="678"></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-6.gif" ALT="678"></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-6.gif" ALT="678"></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-6.gif" ALT="676"></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-6.gif" ALT="674"></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-6.gif" ALT="671"></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-6.gif" ALT="671"></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-6.gif" ALT="669"></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-6.gif" ALT="667"></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-6.gif" ALT="667"></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-6.gif" ALT="667"></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="667"></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-6.gif" ALT="665"></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-6.gif" ALT="665"></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-6.gif" ALT="665"></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-6.gif" ALT="665"></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-6.gif" ALT="662"></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-6.gif" ALT="662"></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-6.gif" ALT="660"></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-6.gif" ALT="660"></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="660"></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="660"></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-6.gif" ALT="660"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="660"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="658"></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-6.gif" ALT="656"></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-6.gif" ALT="656"></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-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/00-13125.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WATTLETON (7/9/2002, NO. 00-13125)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="654"></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-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/00-13125.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. WATTLETON (7/9/2002, NO. 00-13125)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="649"></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-6.gif" ALT="647"></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-6.gif" ALT="647"></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-6.gif" ALT="647"></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-6.gif" ALT="647"></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-6.gif" ALT="645"></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-6.gif" ALT="645"></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-6.gif" ALT="642"></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-6.gif" ALT="642"></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-6.gif" ALT="642"></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-6.gif" ALT="640"></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-6.gif" ALT="640"></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="636"></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-6.gif" ALT="636"></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-6.gif" ALT="636"></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-6.gif" ALT="636"></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-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44E513E0FE4020B188256B7200621453/$file/0055722.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/039A92FE7F60F910882571C6007C031D/$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-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></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-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0215p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We repeat below a helpful overview of the Medicare program to set the scene before exploring the procedural and substantive facts of this case.1 The Medicare program is codified in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. These insurance carriers are called Fiscal Intermediaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></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-6.gif" ALT="633"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></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-6.gif" ALT="629"></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-6.gif" ALT="629"></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-6.gif" ALT="627"></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-6.gif" ALT="627"></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-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54174A94D53286138825709D005609EF/$file/0356766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carty was sentenced to state prison for a term of sixteen years. Eight years later a day before Carty was to be released on parole the San Diego County District Attorney filed a civil commitment petition against Carty pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6F954C769582125388257235007DB22D/$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-6.gif" ALT="624"></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-6.gif" ALT="624"></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-6.gif" ALT="624"></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-6.gif" ALT="624"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="622"></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-6.gif" ALT="620"></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-6.gif" ALT="620"></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="620"></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-6.gif" ALT="618"></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-6.gif" ALT="618"></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-6.gif" ALT="618"></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-6.gif" ALT="618"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="616"></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-6.gif" ALT="613"></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-6.gif" ALT="613"></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-6.gif" ALT="613"></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-6.gif" ALT="611"></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-6.gif" ALT="611"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="604"></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-6.gif" ALT="604"></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-6.gif" ALT="602"></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-6.gif" ALT="602"></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-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E21767784D86EB2288256E5A00707C4C/$file/0050594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether presentence notice was required by Fed. As the district court had reason to believe that Lopez was in need of treatment in order to make it in the real world. Disclosure of information about his status was reasonably required for successfully supervising his reentry into society. Lopez was transferred on January 14. He was arrested when he returned to pick up his pay check. Lopez was indicted on one count of escape in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Lopez found things at the halfway house moved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CEECEA63835F703288256AA7006E0B48/$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-6.gif" ALT="602"></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-6.gif" ALT="600"></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-6.gif" ALT="600"></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-6.gif" ALT="600"></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-6.gif" ALT="600"></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-5.gif" ALT="598"></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-5.gif" ALT="598"></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-5.gif" ALT="598"></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-5.gif" ALT="598"></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-5.gif" ALT="595"></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-5.gif" ALT="595"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="593"></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-5.gif" ALT="591"></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-5.gif" ALT="589"></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-5.gif" ALT="589"></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-5.gif" ALT="589"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="587"></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-5.gif" ALT="584"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="582"></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-5.gif" ALT="580"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="578"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></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-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93C3769C26C92A54882570E4005571E5/$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-5.gif" ALT="573"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="571"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="569"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="566"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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-5.gif" ALT="564"></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.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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="562"></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-5.gif" ALT="560"></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-5.gif" ALT="560"></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-5.gif" ALT="560"></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-5.gif" ALT="560"></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-5.gif" ALT="558"></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-5.gif" ALT="558"></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-5.gif" ALT="558"></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-5.gif" ALT="558"></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-5.gif" ALT="555"></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-5.gif" ALT="555"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="553"></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="553"></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-5.gif" ALT="551"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="546"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="542"></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-5.gif" ALT="542"></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-5.gif" ALT="542"></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-5.gif" ALT="542"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="540"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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 $316. No victim of the frauds who received money back was paid directly from funds of Jarvis or Penn Capital. The repayments were derived from other fraudulently obtained funds originating from other defrauded investors. S 3A1.1 might be applicable.2 A sentencing hearing was held on April 13 and 27. During which evidence relating to victim impact was obtained. 000) while knowing that their only son was dying of cancer . Jarvis had promised a 9% r eturn on his investment and assured him that no loss was possible because the investment was guaranteed by the state. Who at the time was 79 years old. Which was used in the PSR. 3 Additionally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B22A82A48903C1588256E5A00707A33/$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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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 $299. Plantz was alive. McKimble said that he had expected to be paid for the murder. <p> Bryson was interviewed by police detectives two times after the murder. PROCEDURAL HISTORY <p> Bryson was found guilty of first degree murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D21B265477505FC6882569EB00625430/$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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="537"></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-5.gif" ALT="535"></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-5.gif" ALT="535"></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="535"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="533"></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-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052565np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although we are certainly sympathetic with Schuenemann's parents. Who have suffered the tragic loss of their son. We agree with the District Court that there is insufficient evidence to hold the municipal defendants liable for Schuenemann's death. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to our conclusion. A warrant was issued for Schuenemann's arrest. Schuenemann was arrested at the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Airport. Schuenemann was incarcerated in federal custody in various institutions. He did not give them any indication that he was depressed or suicidal. 2 On March 21. Schuenemann was transported by the United States Marshals Service to the Allegheny County Jail ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEzMDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1305-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was suffering from end stage renal disease. Peter Lucia's left kidney was therefore air lifted to a hospital in Miami. Where Colavito was waiting for its implantation. While Colavito was being prepared for surgery. Discovered that Lucia's left kidney was irreparably damaged by aneurysms and therefore unfit for implantation. He was told that it had already been delivered to and implanted in another patient. Have also brought suit against a variety of persons and entities in New York State court alleging fraud. Concluding that his remaining claims were barred by a common law public policy against recognizing property rights in human corpses. We think that New York public policy respecting organ donations is more likely to be properly determined by reference to its current relevant statutory law than common law principles. Because Colavito's claims raise novel questions of statutory interpretation that have not yet been addressed by the New York courts. We will certify the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Do the applicable provisions of the New York Public Health Law vest the intended recipient of a directed organ donation with rights that can be vindicated in a private party's lawsuit sounding in the common law tort of conversion or through a 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 private right of action derived from the New York Public Health Law? (2) Does New York Public Health Law immunize either (3) If a donee can negligent or grossly negligent misconduct? bring a private action to enforce the rights referred to in question 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2265a.htm">98-2265A -- WEITZ V. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM INC. -- 05/31/2000<BR></A><BR> 1991 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-6400.opa.html">D.W. V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D.W. v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/96-6400.opa.html">D.W. V. ROGERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D.W. v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967889.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1731.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Markopoulos were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee McCabe. Zinger's apartment was located. 2 [hereinafter: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1515.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluded that claimant was not disabled at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process. Claimant argues that the Secretary's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm that decision if it is supported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A4471EA5D916FEA88256D3D007033BC/$file/0255941.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></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 court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision and remand the case with instructions in turn to remand it to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. Who was 30 years old. Inasmuch as there was insufficient information in the record to determine his condition between the ages of 18 to 22 years. Beasich appealed and a hearing was held on April 20. The case was submitted to the district court on the record and briefs without oral argument and the district court affirmed the final decision of the Commissioner on July 30. B. Factual Background Beasich was born on August 31. His father committed suicide when Beasich was nine years old. Beasich is currently 36 years old. When Beasich was 14 years old. He was classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/961351P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that Ruth Rahija was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Holding that Rahija was deliberately indifferent to Coleman's serious medical needs and awarding Coleman $1. (4) Rahija's conduct was sufficiently callous to support an award of punitive damages. remaining issues. I. Background The factual background is primarily based on the findings of the district court. Was transferred from the Iowa Correctional Facility for Women in Mitchellville. Coleman was twenty eight years old and approximately She was transferred to IMCC to facilitate closer Rahija was a registered nurse employed by seven months pregnant. Coleman prematurely delivered twins who were either stillborn or died Of Coleman's subsequent four pregnancies. Examined Coleman and discovered that her cervix was one to two centimeters dilated. Coleman's obstetric history was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></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-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0233p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is known as TennCare. Which have been approved by the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). Reducing or suspending the TennCare coverage of members of the plaintiff class who are enrolled in the TennCare program. TennCare is the State of Tennessee's federally approved Medicaid demonstration project. Tennessee's Medicaid program is the nation's most generous. Which is to say a State's provision of Medicaid benefits that federal law does not require participating States to provide. All three of the notices have been written in a way that ensures they are comprehensible to individuals who have a sixth grade reading level. Each TennCare recipient who has not been identified by the State as eligible to receive benefits under another Medicaid category and who is therefore scheduled for disenrollment will receive a 14 page RFI packet. The RFI informs beneficiaries that their eligibility category for TennCare is ending and that they may continue to receive benefits only if they qualify for an open Medicaid category. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the defendants have raised a sovereign immunity defense to these claims as an alternative ground for affirmance. The Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2097.01A">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. Both jobs were sedentary in nature. The ALJ determined that it was not severe. Because we affirm the decision of the Secretary that claimant was not disabled on other grounds. We need not address the 2 question whether these specific conclusions of the ALJ were supported by substantial evidence. To be considered disabled. A claimant must have a physical or mental impairment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7991D1B934EE9DE8825734D0053440E/$file/0615972.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Roy Allen O'Guinn is a Nevada state prisoner who has sued prison officials claiming they denied him accommodation and treatment for his mental illness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I O'Guinn is a prisoner at Lovelock Correctional Center. Which in the past have required medical treatment. The complaint was filed on a form entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-6304.opa.html">HARDIN V. HAYES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hardin v. 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. Periodically repeated her perception of a continuing threat to her life.<p> Because the City jail was being renovated. She was observed by one of the other inmates smearing vomit on her own face. The physician's response was noncommittal. Houseal was released from the hospital immediately after treatment and returned to the County jail.<p> On May 31. 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 in the water and repeatedly falling down. One of the inmates also may have seen her consuming fecal matter. Hayes ordered Raley to call the City and have Houseal removed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-6304.opa.html">HARDIN V. HAYES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hardin v. 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. Periodically repeated her perception of a continuing threat to her life.<p> Because the City jail was being renovated. She was observed by one of the other inmates smearing vomit on her own face. The physician's response was noncommittal. Houseal was released from the hospital immediately after treatment and returned to the County jail.<p> On May 31. 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 in the water and repeatedly falling down. One of the inmates also may have seen her consuming fecal matter. Hayes ordered Raley to call the City and have Houseal removed. </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/2000/05/98-2265.htm">98-2265 -- WEITZ V. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. -- 05/31/2000<BR></A><BR> Lovelace is the only appellee and the New Mexico state law claims are the only claims remaining in this case. Eddie was an Air Force Staff Sergeant stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque. They were seen jointly on December 4 by J. Eddie and Arlene were then seen jointly on December 9 by Dr. Bolinder was apparently employed by Adlerian Therapy Services. Eddie was drunk. Eddie said that he would disown Loretta so that he would not have to pay child support. After Arlene told Eddie she was leaving. When Eddie told Haupt that he felt an examination was unnecessary. Eddie was instead seen by Genevieve Davidge. Davidge observed that Eddie was anxious and that he was unsure of his ability to handle his emotions should he and Arlene divorce. Davidge concluded that Eddie was not an immediate threat to himself or others but scheduled an appointment for Eddie to return the following day for further examination. Davidge concluded that Eddie was improved. None was arranged and Eddie never received additional counseling. <p> During the December 30 meeting between Haupt and Eddie. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022056.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As is required by 42 U.S.C.A. § 292f(g) (West 2003). The parties agree that the facts of this case are undisputed. Smitley was 47 years old. Positions in The Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation did not participate in the adversary proceeding because ECMC is its successor in interest. 2 The record indicates that Smitley paid approximately $10. Smitley's wife was 45 years old. The children have health insurance through the State. Smitley and his wife do not have health insurance. Smitley stated the following basis for his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/04-10245-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug03/04-70010-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0994p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The general issue we address is whether Fair Acres Geriatric Center. The jury was asked to decide whether. Wagner was </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/2003/02/01-1531.htm">01-1531 -- VALDEZ V. BARNHART -- 02/20/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Ruben Valdez appeals from the denial of his claim for social security disability insurance and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 . We review the agency's decision on the whole record to determine only whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. <u>Goatcher v. We affirm the denial of disability benefits and reverse the denial of SSI benefits. <p> Plaintiff was born on February 12. Is fifty three years old this year. His past relevant work was as a construction laborer. Which was denied by the agency on January 29. Vehicle he was working under fell on him. Decided that the ALJ's conclusions about plaintiff's impairments and limitations were consistent with the record as a whole. <p> On appeal. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ: (1) violated the treating physician rule when he rejected a treating psychologist's opinion about plaintiff's mental impairments based on his own opinion that plaintiff was not credible in describing his symptoms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E58B9523D0E9679C88256EAC00577514/$file/0235675.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Kevin Anderson was convicted in 1993 of first degree rape and sodomy under Oregon laws that prohibit having sexual intercourse with a person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul06/04-10245-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3172.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. In light of the fact that there is an insufficient basis upon which to determine whether the Board committed procedural error. Rapp is warranted. Rapp was previously employed as a GS 12 Computer Specialist with the Department of the Navy. Rapp developed severe mental health problems and was unable to meet the requirements of her position. Rapp was subject to annual medical evaluations to certify that she was still mentally disabled. Rapp that the latest medical report that she submitted was not adequate to complete her annual medical review. Rapp's depression was controllable with medication and that he saw </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982374.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A. Rhoads was hired as a financial analyst in September 1987 by Standard Federal Savings Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-2236.htm">99-2236 -- SANCHEZ V. APFEL -- 04/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Jose D. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/023919p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the review process is a long one and children are eligible for services under Part C of IDEA only up to the age of three. The issue we are called upon to resolve is whether paying de Mora for the time she personally spent working with her daughter after Bucks County refused to provide services is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/01/001065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Randy Closs was granted a conditional parole. Psychotropic drugs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul06/04-70010-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In support of the argument that his mental impairment is disabling. Claimant argues that this evaluation shows debilitating limitations and that these limitations have been confirmed in the notes from his treatment at the Carolina Mental Health Center. Is the fact that both the consultative examination and his treatment occurred <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0125p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based upon an alleged violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after she was fired in October of 2002. Concluding that Edgar was not entitled to relief under the FMLA because she was unable to return to work after the 12 week period of statutory leave had ended. Edgar argues that her ability to resume her duties is a disputed question of fact that the district court improperly resolved in JAC's favor. A job that she held until the position was eliminated in 2001. Deciding to continue working because she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DAD49026ABB3C42882571ED007FFCCF/$file/0530348.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Similar counts were dismissed. Two of the conditions are unwarranted. Background Napier was the executive director of two nonprofit organizations that received federal grants. The terms and conditions of final release will be provided in a final judgment in this case. They may be modified from time to time while you are under supervised release . . . Those terms and conditions will be set forth in the final judgment. ... The district court also summarized the effect of some of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1792.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7103.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which [are] basically task oriented. The ALJ determined that there were a significant number of other jobs which appellant could perform in the national or regional economy. The ALJ concluded that appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. <hr> Appellant sought review of the ALJ's decision from the Appeals Council. We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the correct legal standards were applied. Substantial evidence is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-2143.htm">98-2143 -- TRUJILLO V. NEW MEXICO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 04/08/1999<BR></A><BR> The New Mexico Department of Corrections.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D529B685DB93940D88256BA400767EF2/$file/9999031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of first degree murder. Were fired by their employer on November 8. WOODFORD 6125 were insufficient to cover future rent. They devised a plan to rob fellow employees who were also to be paid on that date. Among whom were [Timothy] Dykstra and [Michael] Wolbert. Was to be held at the home of friends in the Anaheim Hills area. Were cautious. It was then between 7 and 9 p.m. Wolbert then left the car and when he next looked at [Visciotti] he saw that [Visciotti] and Dykstra were standing face to face about two feet apart. Wolbert told [Visciotti] where the money was hidden. WOODFORD back toward Dykstra who was sitting down. Who was backing up. He was later able to attract the attention of passersby who summoned aid. Dykstra was dead when paramedics arrived. Wolbert was transported to the hospital where he underwent surgery. [Visciotti] and Hefner were arrested as they left their motel room about 9 a.m. on the morning after the robbery and murder. Was found hidden in a space behind the bathroom sink. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE1MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1506-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which in this case was the plaintiff appellant crossappellee A. Sista was employed by defendant appellee cross appellant CDC Ixis North America. Sista was promoted by CDC at the behest of his direct supervisor. Nothing was done to address Sista's complaints. The telephone conversation was recorded because it related to CDC's trading desk. Though neither Sista nor Monaghan was aware of Mehta's presence. During a discussion of a transaction on which Mehta was working. Nathani asked him whether he had threatened Mehta or arranged </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-8024.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was tried before a jury. Alleging she was refused employment as a police officer because of her disability. Sheriff Dovala was succeeded by defendant Sheriff Mark Benton. The issues considered by the jury were whether McKenzie was qualified for a position within the Natrona County Sheriff's Office. They found that McKenzie was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/99-6329.htm">99-6329 -- TATE V. FARMLAND INDUSTRIES INC. -- 10/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Seizures have never been indicated on previous physicals. Dilantin was listed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9A9CE57C4219AEB988256E5A00707AF8/$file/9817152.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1379T.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In view of the pressures of time discussed later in the opinion. * This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD710642EE1C289388256A33005ADA63/$file/9817152.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063487P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motion . . . is denied without prejudice to [Nooner's] right to file a petition for habeas corpus in the district court. </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/022001.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed suit seeking to have declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both sides have now appealed. We decline to consider plaintiffs' assertion of a private right of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43) because the arguments now made on appeal by plaintiffs were neither asserted nor addressed below. I. Plaintiff Oklahoma Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (OKAAP) is a non profit professional organization of pediatricians and pediatric specialists. (CAPTC) is a non profit organization located in Tulsa. The individually named plaintiffs are thirteen children and their parents. All of whom have been designated as representatives of the class certified by the district court. Defendants are officials of the State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA). Alleging that defendants' policies and procedures denied or deprived eligible children in the State of Oklahoma of the health and medical care to which they were entitled under federal law. (c) their alleged right pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(30)(A) to have provider reimbursement rates set at a sufficient level to assure Medicaid recipients of equal access to quality health care. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1379.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. He argues that three conditions are overbroad and involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes of his supervised release. We review for plain error only. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032103P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that Nooner's substantive claims were without merit. Although we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Nooner's motion to dismiss his petition was knowing and voluntary. Was washing clothes at a Little Rock laundromat at approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 16. An element of which was the use or threat of violence. That the murder was committed for pecuniary gain) and no mitigating circumstances. Nooner was sentenced to death by lethal injection. While the petition was pending. We directed the district court to reexamine its decision and determine whether Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition. The district court determined that Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition and granted his request. The district court also addressed the merits of Nooner's petition and concluded that his stated claims were without merit. (2) that Arkansas' victim impact statute is constitutionally infirm. We first examine the district court's factual finding that Nooner was competent to withdraw his habeas petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053420np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court determined that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Izzo was diagnosed with Lyme disease in April 1995. Izzo was prescribed intravenous treatment on January 16. Who opined that Izzo's prognosis was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The hearing was held on November 26. Claimant was fifty five years of age and had a fifth grade education. There were jobs in the local economy that a person with the hypothesized limitations could perform. Examples were wire cutter. If claimant's own description of his condition and symptoms as expressed at the hearing were true. 1991 (the date through which claimant was insured). 4 With respect to the first period. Finding that there was neither good cause nor any other basis under the relevant regulations for reopening the prior case. That he did not have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7143BA2AF101AC5488256DE6000198C4/$file/0235077.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is limited to $200. Rabkin is a liver transplant surgeon who contends that after he raised concerns about patient well being under a fellow physician's care. Rabkin was originally recruited to serve as director of OHSU's Liver Transplant Program in 1991. Who did not have confidence in Dr. Trunkey's decision was based on Dr. Rabkin was reinstated as director under the supervision of John Barry. Orloff was still unhappy with the new arrange RABKIN v. OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES 16611 ment and was exploring other opportunities. His recommendation was followed. Before he was placed on the tenure track. Orloff's patient mortality rate was double his own. Rabkin was informed that he was no longer director of the Liver Transplant Program and that a third transplant surgeon would be recruited as the new director. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-1347.htm">02-1347 -- U.S. V. STROUD -- 04/10/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <strong></strong> <p> <strong>I. INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> Defendant Lawrence Stroud ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul21/04-70004-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That issue is not ripe for review at this time because the district court has not actually granted Morris any equitable remedy. BACKGROUND In December 1993 Morris was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital offense of murdering James Moody Adams. Within ten months after Atkins was decided. Richard Garnett who offered his professional opinion that there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Reed was making dinner. While they were talking. Henyard told her he was going to a night club in Orlando and to see his father in South Florida. The Lewis girls were crying and upset. This is Satan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0012.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remaining allegations in Rose's habeas petition were dismissed. No certificate of appealability is necessary with respect to the portion of the district court's judgment from which the State appeals. A. After receiving a report that Patricia Stewart was missing and finding small drops of blood in and around her apartment. The thermos and the trunk of the Ford contained bloodstains that were consistent with Stewart's blood type and inconsistent with Rose's. Rose told Frye that he did not want to discuss Stewart's disappearance </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0654n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He also argues that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. He alleged that he was disabled because of mental impairments. Nelson was taking computer science classes at Pellissippi State. Cook noted that Nelson's Liebowitz Social Anxiety score was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/02-10782.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ZINN (2/14/2003, NO. 02-10782)<BR></A><BR> Zinn pled guilty to possessing child pornography and was sentenced to imprisonment to be followed by a period of supervised release. Or are employed. Carry on a vocation or are a student as directed by your probation officer. The probation officer will provide State officials with all information required under Florida Sexual Predators and Sexual Offender Notification and Registration Statutes and [may] direct you to report to these agencies personally for required additional processing such as photographic. Fingerprinting and DNA collection.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/608B5B5A21806D3588256EF90056C7CE/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5407E7856E0AC35788256EB700589094/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/02-10782.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ZINN (2/14/2003, NO. 02-10782)<BR></A><BR> Zinn pled guilty to possessing child pornography and was sentenced to imprisonment to be followed by a period of supervised release. Or are employed. Carry on a vocation or are a student as directed by your probation officer. The probation officer will provide State officials with all information required under Florida Sexual Predators and Sexual Offender Notification and Registration Statutes and [may] direct you to report to these agencies personally for required additional processing such as photographic. Fingerprinting and DNA collection.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1246p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The hospital objected on the grounds that the documents were confidential and that it could not comply with the request without violating the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. We will grant Hahnemann's petition for mandamus. Shane Edgar was admitted to the Psychiatric Medical Care Unit of Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia. The Edgars sought discovery from Hahnemann of any information that would demonstrate that it was on notice of the two male patients' propensity for sexual assault. The hospital objected on the grounds that the documents were confidential and that it could not comply with the request without violating the MHPA. The district court denied the Edgars' motion and directed that if the dispute was not resolved they could file a more specific set of requests for documents. Further ordered that: In the event that the only incident reports prepared by [the mental health technician] are contained in one or both of the treatment records of the male patients involved in the subject incident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0459p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perry argues that the district court erred when it held that he had not given sufficient notice and that his son did not have a serious health condition. I. Perry was employed by defendant as an auto parts counterperson when he sought leave in the summer of 2001 to care for his 13 year old son. Jaguar of Troy No. 02 1816 Victor was certified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041910.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants Pro Se. 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We dismiss all the appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the order is interlocutory and not appealable. 337 U.S. 541 (1949). order appealed here is neither final nor an The appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-2523.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-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1389.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were James P. Of counsel was Peter L. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Alex Azar. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Telecare was liable as a secondary payer. Medicare was enacted in 1965 as Title 18 of the Social Security Act. Congress provided that where beneficiaries are covered for medical expenses by both a group health plan and Medicare. This provision is known as the Medicare Secondary Payer ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/012066p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NJ 07042 Attorney for Appellant Thomas Affinito was convicted in 1998 of murder and kidnapping in New Jersey state court. That failure was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant granting a writ of habeas corpus. Michael Perez were drinking at a bar called Stash's Tavern in Carteret. What follows was related primarily by Perez. Who was an eyewitness to what occurred throughout that evening and the early morning hours of February 23. The three men were regular patrons at Stash's Tavern and had met one another there. That they neither were good friends nor had they known each other very long. The suggestion was made that they could drive around in Cupsie's car. They were locked. He drove to Affinito's house. 2 Affinito was sitting in the back seat. Did not have any marijuana. Affinito pinned Cupsie to the ground and repeatedly punched his face and head until he was bloodied and unconscious. He was unsuccessful. It appears Perez was either frozen by fear. Portnow's evaluation of Affinito's mental status at the time of the incident was based on two interviews with him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/013272P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Keith Smith (Smith) was convicted of committing a double murder. Smith was living as a guest in the Kansas City. Smith and Campbell were in a room downstairs while Campbell's housekeeper. Was upstairs making dinner. While they were alone downstairs. He was arrested on November 23. As he and Ware were leaving a motel. Smith signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights and was interrogated by John Fraise. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-2523.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-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055521np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue in this case is whether the District Judge should have disqualified herself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). No party was harmed by any rulings made by the District Judge during the course of these proceedings. We will therefore affirm. To see if he could arrange logistics for a protest event that he was organizing. The secretary pressed the panic button to summon campus police because she believed Marcavage was making a commotion in the office. Testified that he shouted to Marcavage to see if he was doing all right. Looked like he was going to collapse. Walton testified that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></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="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Supreme Court is remanded to the district court. The district court ordered that the writ be granted on the ground that Williams's trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to present certain evidence in mitigation of punishment during the sentencing phase of Williams's trial. The remaining allegations in Williams's habeas petition were dismissed. The Commonwealth contends that the writ was erroneously granted.1 We agree. Greene was substituted for Pruett as Respondent. Williams was transferred to the Sussex I State Prison. Was substituted for Greene as Respondent. We refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></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-5.gif" ALT="508"></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-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-8481.opa.html">YOUNG V. AUGUSTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Young v. Or other proper proceeding for redress.<p> <p> A local city government is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Collins was on brief for Herbert Alan Butt. Ball with whom Gael Mahony and Hill & Barlow were on brief for James T. Was on brief for the United States. 2 COFFIN. Were convicted for offenses relating to their participation in a payoff scheme involving Malden prostitutes. Defendants argue that their sentences should be vacated and that they are entitled to a new trial. Facts The facts as the jury could have found them are as follows. Semon was present at the arrest. The charge against Kevorkian was dismissed. As she was leaving the police station. Semon gave her his business card and informed her that some prostitutes were permitted by the police to work free from the threat of arrest. They informed her that if she wished to keep working in Malden she would have to start 3 making weekly payments to the officers. Since Semon had taken ill and was off the illegal payroll. Semon was charged with two counts of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623. Butt and Semon were sentenced to prison terms of thirty and eighteen months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0172p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (TP&A) is a federally mandated independent non profit agency that investigates allegations of abuse against the disabled. Is not covered under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act). When he was 20 years old. He was permanently disabled and must live in a nursing home because he is unable to care for himself. TP&A is the Tennessee chapter of a network of independent agencies. Each state must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0254p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hartman was convicted in an Ohio state court of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder. Morris testified that Snipes was yelling at defendant about touching stuff that was not his. Snipes was observed crossing a street in a nearby business district. She was never seen alive again. Defendant was in and out of the bar five to six times between 9:00 and 10:30 p.m. Snipes's leg was draped across the bed. Bagley Page 3 plastic chair was on top of her body. Snipes's hands were cut off and have never been found. Defendant was at the Inn Between with Morris. While police units were across the street investigating Snipes's murder. Defendant approached Detective Gregory Harrison while he was at a mobile crime lab parked outside Snipes's apartment. Defendant approached Harrison a second time and spontaneously mentioned that Snipes was a whore. Defendant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510245.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment because Cruz failed to provide sufficient notice to Publix that she was requesting leave for a potentially FMLA qualifying reason. I. BACKGROUND Cruz was a long term employee who worked in Publix's bakery department as a cake decorator. Cruz learned that her adult daughter was pregnant and was due to give birth to Cruz's second grandchild on November 1. The leave was predicated on Publix's policy regarding unpaid leave. Cruz reminded Assistant Bakery Manager Lance Davis that because she was taking leave due to her daughter's pregnancy. She might have to leave for Colorado earlier than planned. Did not tell Davis that she might have to stay in Colorado longer than expected. Which was two weeks before her leave was scheduled to begin. Cruz informed Davis that she thought her daughter was in labor and therefore she planned to leave the following day for Colorado. Cruz told them that she believed her daughter was in labor. At no time did Cruz tell them that her daughter was having complications due to her pregnancy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-8481.opa.html">YOUNG V. AUGUSTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Young v. Or other proper proceeding for redress.<p> <p> A local city government is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063545P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carol Louise Gillmore was convicted of second degree murder within Indian country. Gillmore was also ordered to pay restitution The Honorable Donovan W. Gillmore's United States Sentencing Guidelines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051565P.pdf">N:\DOCS\CATHY\05-1565,1566 CHRONISTER V. UNUM OPN CIRC 3.20.WPD<BR></A><BR> Chronister was injured in a car accident in 1995. Baptist Health's plan was insured by a group insurance policy from Unum. Unum determined that Chronister was entitled to long term disability benefits effective October 16. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 21 Chronister's disability benefits on the basis of a policy provision that limited benefits to twenty four months if the disability was primarily based on self reported symptoms (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-7050.htm">97-7050 -- RAILEY V. APFEL -- 01/09/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Doris A. Is not supported by substantial evidence and several legal errors occurred. 1990. <p> Four hearings have been held now on plaintiff's application. This decision was reversed and remanded by the Appeals Council because it was both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the evidence. Thus was not disabled. Plaintiff was determined able to perform her former light work. In September 1994 the case was remanded by the district court. Because the ALJ's findings on the Psychiatric Review Technique Form (PRTF) were inconsistent with his finding that plaintiff did not suffer from a mental impairment before September 30. A fourth hearing was had on January 19. She could perform her former work and thus was not disabled. This appeal followed. <p> We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether his factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether correct legal standards were applied. <u>See</u> <u>Hawkins v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></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-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/043379P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alberto Gonzales is automatically substituted for his predecessor. An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Court determined the law was unconstitutional because it did not contain an exception to preserve the health of the mother. The Court determined the law was worded so broadly it covered the vast majority of late term abortions and thus imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion itself. The entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother. Any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. For the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus. Id. § 1531(b)(1). 3 The Act contains an exception allowing the performance of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001761.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the According district court's opinion and find no reversible error. ly. 2000). dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a lawsuit by three Missouri residents and a non profit advocacy organization. Defendants are the Missouri Secretary of State. Who are sued only in their official capacities. The claims of two individual plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice at their request. Relief on the merits after rejecting defendants' threshold arguments that the case is moot. That these State officers are not proper defendants. Broadly grants the right to vote to </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1167.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> THE FACTS We are guided through the thicket of conflicting testimony and the chasmal gaps in the direct evidence by the rule that. See id. at 35 36. 2 The evidence is conflicted as to whom she saw and what that person was told about her condition. Angel testified that he implored the receptionist to have someone </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/971147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court certified a class of plaintiffs that includes those who have been employed at Eveleth Mines in Eveleth. Minn. 1991) (Jenson I).2 The named defendants are Eveleth Taconite Company. The district court defined the class to include: all women who have applied for. Or have been employed in. Who have been. Are being. Subd. 2 (allowing district court judge to award same relief). will be discriminated against with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment because of gender. The plaintiffs have not appealed that ruling. Plaintiffs have not pled a separate claim for defamation. Plaintiffs are entitled to have the trier of fact weigh evidence such as public humiliation. The specific awards were as follows: for Angel Alaspa the amount of $6. The Special Master found that the claims of Diane Hodge were time barred. Plaintiffs assert the damages awards do not make the women whole and are totally inadequate and ?shocking. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1793.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Claimant was born on May 23. Applied for benefits when he was forty four years old. He was diagnosed in 1979 as having a herniated disc and underwent surgery on April 18. He was allowed to return to work on September 24. He is insured at least through March 11. Claimant's application was denied on reconsideration. He was represented by an attorney. He does not have an impairment or combination of impairments equivalent to one of the listed impairments. He also found that claimant is unable to perform his past relevant work. An appeal was taken to the district court. Where a magistrate judge (magistrate) concluded that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The medical record is well summarized in the ALJ's and the magistrate's reports. He was sufficiently improved to return to work. Although he was limited temporarily to lifting thirty pounds. He continued to feel back pain and was fitted with a flexion jacket. He was also advised to continue light work and exercise. There is a gap in the medical record between August 1980 and August 1988. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9820.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He approached the house of Conway Forrest Richter ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AAB7506DC7F717E88256DF30061FFAB/$file/0256666.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We vacate the district court's denial of the petition and remand for further factual development of his claim that the limitations period should be tolled because of his mental incompetency during the period in which he could have timely filed.1 I Laws was convicted after a jury trial on February 17. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. Prisoners like Laws whose convictions were final prior to that date were required to file any remaining federal petition for which they were otherwise eligible within one year of AEDPA's effective date. That is. Attached to this petition were Laws's prison psychiatric and medical records from 1993 94. Though not the psychiatric reports that were apparently prepared for his section 1368 competency hearing. LAMARQUE 17159 document his claim that the delay in filing was attributable to psychiatric </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly. Failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial. (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert's co defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement life in prison without the possibility of parole truly meant that he would never be released. BLODGETT 17319 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. Lambert cross appeals the issues on which he was denied relief. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9FEAD48D2564FED888256D3A007CD783/$file/0170398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While documentary evidence showing that an alien was residing in the United States during a particular period may be desirable in establishing the date of entry. As we have many times before. Because homelessness is an all too common state in our society. We reject any suggestion that it is not credible that an VERA VILLEGAS v. We also note that Vera's story is a remarkable one and that the witnesses who testified to the facts regarding his timely presence in the United States are an impressive lot. He was served with an Order to Show Cause ( </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011640.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The factual account below is drawn from the three amended complaints. The parties and the magistrate judge agree that the United States is the only proper defendant. Jones was reported to be drunk and under the influence of narcotics. To have left the campus twice to drink. The students allege that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/971010P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Vivian Martyszenko was working as a cashier at Safeway grocery store in Ogallala. When she received a call indicating that police believed her two children may have been sexually molested. Sullivan was inconclusive and that Kyle was scheduled for additional appointments at about twoweek intervals. He reported: [Kyle] is not expressing any issues that he has been sexually abused or had any sexual contact. The family reports that his behavior at home is essentially normal with no behavior problems. Sullivan observed that his final interview with Kyle was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2349.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties consented to have the matter heard by a magistrate judge. A court </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/039.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IV and announcing the judgment in part V: Petitioner appellant Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was sentenced to death after being found guilty by a North Carolina jury of the firstdegree rape and first degree murder of Natalie Lynn Osborne. We subsequently issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred by concluding that the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective African American jurors was not violative of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Who is a Caucasian American. Who was his fiancee KANDIES v. Which is around the same time that Ms. Who noticed that Kandies's hand was beginning to swell. Suggested that Kandies have his hand examined by a medical technician that happened to be inside the store. Declined to have the medical technician examine his hand and immediately left the store. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024319.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Yates were both convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 (West 2003) and of filing false claims upon the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 287 (West 2003). Stone was recognized by most of the building managers at Suitland as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4090.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kathy Peck appeals from the district court's order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's determination that she is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Even though the ALJ made all the necessary findings to conclude that she met the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Borderline intellectual functioning.(1) The application was denied both initially and upon reconsideration. At which Peck and her non attorney representative were present. The ALJ rendered a decision in which he determined that Peck was not under a </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0333BD942E7EA5AA8825724C0059D92E/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are precluded. As the jury was. From punishing Exxon for befouling the beautiful region where the oil was spilled. The plaintiffs' punitive damages case was saved from preemption and res judicata because the award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1992 is amended as follows: On page 4. Were on brief for appellants. Villaronga were on brief for appellees. Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This is the second appeal arising out of the district court's oversight of a 1977 settlement stipulation between officials of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and a class of mental patients at the R o Piedras Psychiatric Hospital in San Juan. The lengthy history of this case was summarized in our opinion in the first appeal. The lawsuit that initiated these proceedings was brought on behalf of residents of the R o Piedras Psychiatric Hospital ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1884.01A">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 she is not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. Claimant was accused of losing a key given to her by a coworker. Her social and familial relationships have become constricted and she is frightened of leaving her house. There were no limits on her abilities to reach. The ALJ discredited claimant's allegations of disabling pain. 3 The ALJ next found that claimant's mental impairment affected her ability to work more than minimally and was characterized by sleep disturbances. The ALJ then determined that claimant's past work was unskilled in nature and involved simple and repetitive tasks. Davila's report indicate that claimant's range of motion is somewhat restricted. There is no evidence in the record of muscle weakness. March 1989 and August 1989 were negative except for mild osteoarthritis in the cervical and thoracic spine and mild lumbar scoliosis. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/962466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Sird was not entitled to any court. The ALJ decision was upheld.2 we remand to the The Honorable Lyle E. It is this ruling Sird appeals. 2 1 Secretary for the purpose of awarding benefits. He did not have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1048p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants are three groups of plaintiffs whose separate actions were consolidated by the district court because they all claimed they were harmed by exposure to toxic wastes appellee. The third group are persons. The primary relief all parties seek is medical monitoring. Which was entered following orders granting the Army's motions for summary judgment. We will affirm the orders of the district court with respect to all appellants except the Elliotts. The only plaintiffs who have been able to produce evidence of actual harm by medical evidence showing the Elliott children are suffering from conditions that require medical attention beyond the medical services everyone in the general population should have. NCAD's Use of the Land as a Landfill The New Cumberland Army Depot is located just east of the Harrisburg Airport on about 974 acres of land. The former landfill is bordered by a railroad embankment and the Susquehanna River to the north and by Marsh Run Creek ( </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1E6416438C95FF3882572E300839DF0/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with </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/06a0016n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Griffin told an officer that he was considering hurting himself. Griffin was transferred to a holding area and placed on suicidal precautions. Griffin was released from jail. Griffin was arrested again on November 9. Kelly responded by putting Griffin on alcohol withdrawal and suicide precautions and made a mental health referral.2 Griffin was then removed from the general 1 Defendant SecureCare. Griffin was moved to an isolated holding cell. She also 3 Kettley previously was dismissed from this action. Distel. 4 presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. </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.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-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claimant was thirty four years of age on the alleged onset date. The no disability finding was affirmed. As of the time she was last insured for disability purposes. We conclude that the ALJ's finding that claimant's mental condition was not severe and did not impose any limitation of function on or before March 31. Is not supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed all the evidence and. I. Our focus is on step four of the Secretary's sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e). The initial burden is on the claimant to show that she can no longer perform her particular former work because of her impairments. The ALJ is entitled to credit claimant's own description of her former job duties and functional limitations. There is substantial evidence that claimant met her initial burden to provide information about the activities her usual work required and her functional inability to perform that work. There is also uncontradicted evidence. That the claimant's mental functioning in the critical period was. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacNichol</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5188a.html">TROY CORP V. BROWNER CAROL M.<BR></A><BR> Marchese</i> <p> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Cynthia A. Ugol </i>and <i>Karl S. <p> Bourdeau</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <i>Ellen J. Were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Ginsburg. The requirements for the report are rather <p> detailed. As to each facility at which the <p> chemicals are manufactured. As to each covered toxic chemical known to be present at <p> the facility:<p> <p> (i) Whether the toxic chemical at the facility is manu <p> factured. ... there is sufficient evidence to establish any one <p> of the following </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.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="497"></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-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992382P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Surgery is sufficient to present a fact question regarding whether Caldwell's son's illness and disability qualifies as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992004P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kent appeals the district court's inclusion of a special condition to his three year period of supervised release on the grounds that the condition was an abuse of discretion by the district court. Kent was sentenced to twenty seven months plus three years supervised release after being found guilty of two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He was sentenced to five months incarceration to be served concurrently with his prior sentence of twenty seven months. The court ordered: (1) Kent shall have no contact. She explained that she was fearful of Kent's anger upon his release from prison. The dissolution action was still pending at the time of the hearing. Counsel for the government stated that he believed Kent's probation officer requested the court remove the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a member of an organized crime family. Fisher was allowed to participate in the federal Witness Protection Program. Where he was given the name David Lee Fisher and relocated to Charlotte. Fisher's participation in the federal Witness Protection Program is now a matter of public record and. Was noted during his state trial. 2 Fisher named Ronald J. The underlying facts are as follows: In 1983. Were both residents of Charlotte. When Wilkey was three months old and his mother had moved to Florida with him. When Wilkey was 17 years old. Wilkey had a ninth grade education and was 18 years old at the time of his death. Fisher was in the business of transporting bodies for a funeral home and for the coroner. Who was. Fisher proposed that if Mulligan would agree to shoot Wilkey while the three were on a hunting trip. Was taken by an insurance agent in Charlotte named Kenneth Daren Tietsort. The company wrote to Tietsort to ascertain whether Fisher was in fact a court appointed guardian. The policy was issued in that form on September 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/991672P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hammond argues that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was entitled to damages or other relief under the False Claims Act. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following statement of facts is drawn from the district court order and the record on appeal. Was employed as Medical Director of Northland from October 1994 to September 1996. Hammond became concerned that Northland was improperly billing day Hammond also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend her complaint to include a claim for punitive damages. Even if this matter were properly on appeal before this court. Northland's billing practices were not corrected. After purportedly conducting her own inquiries into the billing practices of other local mental health facilities to determine if Northland's billings were in compliance with Medicare requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061270np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Merck's motion for summary judgment was granted. We find no error and we will affirm. The Factual Setting Ward was hired by Merck as a staff chemist in 1996. Was determined to be able to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032285np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact. Analysis regarding Polini's ADA claim is dispositive of her PHRA claim. In this capacity she was required. She was later given the job of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E602EB5C9A0D3B288256D91005B3715/$file/0016691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Fisher Judge Tallman was drawn to replace Judge Henry Politz. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5018.html">SNYDER V. SECRETARY OF HHS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5125a.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARAMARK CORPORATION, INC.<BR></A><BR> With her </p> <p>on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The </p> <p>National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.</p> <p>Ronald S. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the </p> <p>Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the </p> <p>plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece </p> <p>dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's ". The </p> <p>plan limits disability payments to twenty four months if the </p> <p>disability is caused by a mental condition but continues </p> <p>payments until at least age sixty five if the disability is </p> <p>physical. The two cases were </p> <p>consolidated. Was therefore unprotected by Title I of the </p> <p>ADA. It is not regulated by Title III.</p> <p>EEOC and Fennell appeal. Even if those benefits had </p> <p>been earned when she was a ". Our review is de novo. Cir. 2000).</p> <p>II</p> <p>Our sister circuits are divided on both issues that formed </p> <p>the basis of the district court's grant of summary judgment </p> <p>for Aramark and Aetna. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002423.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Novant argues that the documents Virmani seeks to discover are privileged. Virmani is an obstetrician gynecologist who was granted medical staff membership and clinical privileges at Presbyterian Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital Matthews (collectively. Virmani states that this is a known possible complication of the procedure. Which is composed of three physicians. Using a committee comThe hospitals are non parties that are subsidiaries of Novant. Arguing that the peer review materials were privileged under North Carolina law. That the scope of Virmani's discovery requests was overly broad. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge McKnight. R. Evid. 501.3 Whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 is a mixed question of law and fact. Evidentiary privileges </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-5110.wpd.html">HAWKINS V. CHATER<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. We continue to refer to the Secretary because she was the appropriate party at the time of the underlying decision. Claimant Melzenia Hawkins appeals from a district court order affirming the Secretary's decision to deny her application for social security disability benefits.(1) We review the Secretary's decision on the entire record </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/99-5125a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/04-7019.htm">04-7019 -- EDEN V. BARNHART -- 09/15/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff William B. We have jurisdiction to review this appeal under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-6158.htm">02-6158 -- SCHWARZ V. BARNHART -- 07/16/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Mary A. After her applications were denied at the first and second administrative levels. Claimant was represented by counsel at the hearing. <p> In addition to the evidence contained in her medical records. Crawford was the clinical director of New Horizons Community Counseling and Mental Health Service (New Horizons). It was her opinion that claimant met the social security listing for major depression most of the time. <em>Id.</em> . 12.04 may be present in that a significantly depressing aspect of this claimant[']s life is the well documented chronic pain syndrome secondary to her diagnosed [medical conditions]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/97-6226.htm">97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-1146.htm">99-1146 -- LONDON V. APFEL -- 12/20/1999<BR></A><BR> London alleged that she was disabled because a rod inserted in her right leg made it difficult to stand for long periods of time. These applications were denied and Ms. Her disability insurance claim was denied and her SSI claim deferred. London did not appeal the denial of disability insurance benefits. <p> At issue in this case is Ms. On the theory that her earlier applications should be reopened because new and material evidence of mental disability showed that she was incapable of pursuing an appeal at the time they were denied. She was disabled by chronic pain syndrome related to soft tissue problems. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0070p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0070p.06 We conclude that the district court was correct in finding that the defendant in this case adequately demonstrated that the plaintiffs were engaged in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6254a.htm">96-6254A -- VINING V. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. -- 07/22/1998<BR></A><BR> </strong> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></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-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0395p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 404 05 n. 6 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that an individual supervisor may not be held personally liable under Title VII and noting that the Title VII and ADA liability schemes are similar in this regard). 1 Plaintiff Sullivan failed to make out a prima facie case of being regarded as disabled and did not rebut Defendants' legitimate. Rather than show that the Defendants' stated reasons for seeking his discharge were a pretext for discrimination. Without a showing that those other reasons were discriminatory. The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants is AFFIRMED. 14 Sullivan v. It is not at all clear what the supposed protected activity was. If it was refusing to submit to the mental and physical exams. Then the retaliation argument is logically incoherent. Obviously the Defendants could not have been retaliating for Sullivan's not doing something that they had not yet asked him to do. If the supposed protected activity was something else. Sullivan has not shown how any of his other behavior was a protected means of opposing an act or practice made illegal by the ADA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2881_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Answering questions such as: 2 Assume the first two statements are true. Is the final statement: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002772P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). I. Vicki Banks was born on July 30. She has been blind in her left eye since she was involved in an auto accident as a baby. Which was successfully treated. She was enrolled in special education classes throughout her schooling. She was laid off from that job on April 30. Banks told one psychologist that she was laid off because of her drug use. The opioid dependance is now in remission. Which was diagnosed as mild carpel tunnel syndrome (CTS) on October 8. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 3 any activity because of that diagnosis. It is unclear from the record how long Banks took Propranolol for her headaches. She was apparently taking it in January 1997. She listed it as a medication she was currently taking when she completed her application for hearing dated June 13. Which sometimes alleviated her pain.4 Banks sought psychiatric treatment for depression between January and April 1997 and was placed on antidepressants in February 1997. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011352P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnston was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action in Missouri state court in 1991 for the beating death of his wife. The facts underlying Johnston's conviction are discussed thoroughly by the Missouri Supreme Court. Counsel was appointed to represent Johnston in the Rule 29.15 proceedings. Our consideration of Johnston's appeal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp. 1998). We cannot grant habeas relief on any claim </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/013971P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background CHMS is the health care model that Arkansas currently uses to provide early intervention diagnostic and therapy services to Medicaid eligible children between the ages of six months and six years in order to help make them ready for school. It is designed to serve children who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56EE8299939A3A9688256C6000730733/$file/0017222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-6226.htm">97-6226 -- DEBOARD V. SUNSHINE MINING AND REFINING CO. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs have filed two cross appeals challenging various aspects of the district court's judgment. Knox Van Hoy are former employees of Woods Petroleum Corporation (Woods). As part of the merger (which was described in the record as more akin to a hostile takeover). 1985. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0214p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Among those claims are two student loans totaling $94. ECMC argues that Barrett was required to provide corroborating evidence in the form of expert medical proof to establish that the circumstances underlying his inability to repay the loans will likely continue for a substantial portion of the repayment period. Barrett was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in the summer of 2000. Barrett was diagnosed as being at the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> and in the federal district court that the counsel who represented him in connection with his guilty plea and the counsel who represented him when he sought to withdraw that plea were both constitutionally ineffective. Renee Ornelas examined Dolores and found that although her body was within normal physical limits. Garcia was charged with sexually abusing Dolores over a period of years. He was charged with seven counts of first degree criminal sexual penetration and nine counts of third degree criminal sexual contact with a minor. Which would have exposed him to a maximum of sixty years' imprisonment. Garcia concluded that Dolores' testimony was very believable. Although it was contrary to policy to enter into a plea bargain after a child victim had been interviewed. That he was pleading guilty to fourteen felony counts. That he understood the rights he was giving up. Garcia was scheduled for sentencing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BAE9E10D35B8718825707000540332/$file/0450170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stephens was on supervised release as part of his sentence following the entry of a guilty plea to importation of marijuana. The issue we confront in this appeal is whether the district court improperly delegated its authority to determine the number. Was an order of the district court. There was no improper delegation of Article III judicial authority to the probation department as to whether Stephens would participate. In addition to the number of tests that are ordered as part of his supervised release. Was an improper delegation of the district court's duty to set the maximum number of non treatment drug tests to which Stephens would be subjected during the course of his supervised release. Stephens was indicted on December 6. He pled guilty to count 1 of the indictment and was sentenced on June 12. He was also required to </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/011738.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Tumbleston was a customer service supervisor employed by Smith. Tumbleston was enrolled in Smith's benefits plan. Smith is the Plan Administrator for its Long Term Disability Plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-3104a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-12813.man.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (5/30/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/971983P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Parkus was found guilty of first degree murder for the strangulation death of Mark Steffenhagen. The details of the crime were set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in its opinion affirming the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Parkus and Steffenhagen were inmates in the Missouri State Penitentiary. Where they were confined in Housing Unit 2 B. A unit for prisoners who were considered in need of protective custody. Parkus was housed in the unit because his small physical stature made him a target for sexual abuse by other inmates. Who was also slight of stature. Was likewise housed in the unit for protection from abuse. While bruises on his neck and internal damage to his larynx revealed that strangulation was the cause of his death. Parkus was represented at trial by Donald Catlett. Catlett was an experienced public defender who had represented several defendants with mental problems. Shortly after he was appointed. The typical response he received was that the records had either been destroyed or were not kept. 2 Catlett also sought mental health records from Malcolm Bliss Hospital and was told that that facility had no records of Parkus's ever having been a patient there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/963108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion is consistent with his vote at the panel's conference following oral argument on April 14. The claims against the other defendants were dismissed and only Loeffelholz remains a defendant in the suit. Loeffelholz is the medical director for the Iowa Department of Corrections and also a psychiatrist and clinical director at IMCC. He moved for summary judgment on the theory that any actions he took with respect to Buckley's treatment were protected by qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291.3 For the reasons stated herein. Denial of a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily an unappealable interlocutory order. 28 U.S.C. §1291. To the final order doctrine in cases where summary judgment in a Section 1983 action is denied on the basis that the defendant lacks qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under Section 1291 to review the district court's summary judgment order to the extent that the decision rested on a matter of law. Defendant Loeffelholz contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that any actions he took with respect to the treatment of Buckley violated any Constitutional right of Buckley which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0183n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When he was 25 years old. Which eliminated disability benefits where drug addiction or alcoholism was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-12813.man.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (5/30/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6254.htm">96-6254 -- VINING V. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP INC. -- 07/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Failure to order a new trial because the jury verdict was the product of passion and prejudice. Arguing that in the event a new trial is ordered. Claiming that Milford had misrepresented material health history in his insurance application and that the Policy was issued in reliance upon this misrepresentation. Milford's visit was not precipitated by any symptoms or medical reasons. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT PRESENTLY HAVE. NOR HAVE I EVER HAD. NOR HAVE I BEEN TOLD I HAVE. NOR HAVE I BEEN TREATED WITHIN THE PRECEDING 12 MONTHS FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: ANY HEART DISEASE. Sullivan was his only medical visit in the twelve months preceding the Policy purchase date. Enterprise does not have a claims manual or any written guidelines specifying when a claim is payable or not. Cluck never paid a claim if she had any reason to doubt whether a person's medical history was inconsistent with the health disclaimer included on the insurance application. Cluck did not investigate whether Sidler was informed of Milford's medical history. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6107.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Day was indicted by a federal grand jury in September 1999 on four criminal counts: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute. In excess of fifty (1) This order is not binding precedent. Day was convicted by a jury of all four counts. Was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 240 months. After briefing was completed on Day's motion. That Day's trial counsel was ineffective </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-3348.htm">00-3348 -- CONNER V. SALINA REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER INC. -- 02/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Conner's federal and supplemental state law claims were dismissed. BACKGROUND</strong></u> <p> SRHC is a privately owned Kansas corporation. SRHC notified Conner that his application for reappointment to the medical staff was denied. <p> After exhausting all administrative remedies. Conner asserted that as health care providers are heavily regulated under Kansas law. Conner's due process claim rested on his assertion that he was deprived of protected property interests without due process of law. This deprivation was specifically manifested in an October 1995 administrative suspension which prevented him from performing certain medical procedures. Conner's freedom of speech claim was based on his argument that his suspension and application denial were meted out in retaliation for complaints he had made in relation to the quality of patient care at SRHC. SRHC asserted that it was a privately owned hospital corporation and. The district court found that the language of section 65 4929(b) was written to protect qualified health care providers against antitrust liability and noted that there were different analyses to determine the existence of the state action immunity doctrine for protection from antitrust liability as compared with the analysis to establish state action for purposes of section 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12813.ma2.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/7/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTE1NjVfc28ucGRm/04-1565_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-7096.htm">99-7096 -- BATTENFIELD V. GIBSON -- 01/03/2001<BR></A><BR> They declined because it was cold. There is also evidence that at this approximate time. Stopping once on the way for another ten to fifteen minutes. <p> There is conflicting evidence concerning what transpired when the occupants of the car returned. None of the men were in sight when they first returned to the truck. Cantrell was not in sight. <p> On the way back to Muskogee. The car broke down on the way back to Muskogee and a highway patrol officer helped Battenfield jump start the car. <p> Cantrell's body was found the next day at Wahoo Bay. The injury would likely have rendered Cantrell unconscious. The autopsy results also indicated Cantrell suffered various post mortem abrasions (perhaps from being dragged along the ground from one area to another). <p> The highway patrol officer who helped Battenfield jump start the car testified that Battenfield was wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was again observed wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was arrested for the murder of Cantrell on April 24. Hairs from Cantrell's head were found on Battenfield's jeans and stocking cap (both of which Battenfield was wearing on the night of the murder). <p> Battenfield's jury trial began on February 25. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6254b.htm">96-6254B -- VINING V. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP INC. -- 07/22/1998<BR></A><BR> The error is located on page three of the opinion. Except we retain jurisdiction and do not now decide the issues raised on appeal pertaining to prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. <p> A corrected copy of page three is attached for your convenience. <p> Very truly yours. </strong> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12813.ma2.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/7/2000, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR> Claiming that their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the County. Owens also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Were caused by the same unconstitutional jail conditions and jail practices. On the grounds that Butler County and the Butler County Commission are protected from this suit by legislative immunity. That Sheriff Harris is protected by qualified immunity. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0243n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dep't of Health & Human Servs. have been substantially noncompliant with the standards of care in the Medicare regulations. Arguing that the Department's immediate jeopardy findings were not supported by substantial evidence. BNH is a skilled nursing facility participating in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. Assesses compliance through surveys that are typically conducted by state agencies.1 In June 2001. The scope and severity of each deficiency is determined in accordance with the factors set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 488.404(b): the severity determination ranges from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-7132.htm">03-7132 -- CAMP V. BARNHART -- 06/30/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Bobby Camp appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for Social Security disability benefits. Camp was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and was. Not entitled to disability benefits.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8097.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Steven Paul Bradley (Bradley) was found incompetent to stand trial. Bradley was charged by criminal complaint with violating 18 U.S.C. 844(i).(2) The complaint alleged that on the previous day. Because he was dissatisfied with the purchase of a truck from the dealership. Attached to the grenade was a note which read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.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-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-4126.htm">99-4126 -- STEELE V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 02/22/2001<BR></A><BR> He was promoted and received a raise. Steele was transferred from the main plant test area to the Hydrotest group. Steele was twice promoted on the basis of his performance. <p> As the district court described the problem. Steele's co workers also made comments which Steele believed were directed at his mental health. ' and another say that he thought Steele was 'crazy as hell. Jill Hopper was a Thiokol employee who many believed to have mental problems. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-3222.htm">01-3222 -- WISE V. BARNHART -- 07/09/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Anita Wise appeals an order of the district court denying Social Security disability insurance benefits. Which application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. The district court affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that claimant was not disabled during the relevant period. <p> This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0318.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRUE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The murder was premeditated and committed in cold blood. Bailey was convicted in the Commonwealth of Virginia of two counts of capital murder and one count of murder in the first degree on July 21. He was sentenced to death three days later. Bailey nevertheless argues that his counsel's performance was deficient due to counsel's failure to provide Nelson with additional information or to conduct a more complete investigation into Bailey's background in response to statements in Nelson's report that Bailey. There were not sufficient data to meet the formal criteria for these diagnoses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28FAFD3306215E2B88256A30005ADB9B/$file/9935515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court upholding the refusal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reopen an adverse benefits decision made in 1976. He sought treatment from a Veterans Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/993397P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Lamberth found by a preponderance of the evidence that McAllister was incompetent to stand trial because he was incapable of assisting in his own defense. McAllister was then placed in the Federal Medical Center at Rochester. Judge Lamberth relied upon a report from FMCRochester's clinicians which indicated that McAllister </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54545626A005036B88256E5A00707AE9/$file/9935515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court upholding the refusal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reopen an adverse benefits decision made in 1976. He sought treatment from a Veterans Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AA2751793219CA5D88256A41005B33B8/$file/9935515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. 2001 is amended as follows: Page 3: delete footnote 2. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court upholding the refusal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reopen an adverse benefits decision made in 1976. He sought treatment from a Veterans Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A4E048229A58C5C88256E5A00707B18/$file/9935515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. 2001 is amended as follows: Page 3: delete footnote 2. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court upholding the refusal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to reopen an adverse benefits decision made in 1976. He sought treatment from a Veterans Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7120.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The claim was denied initially and on reconsideration. Sherman's affective mood disorder and history of alcohol and drug abuse were severe impairments. Her inability to have contact with the general public. Her limited ability to have contact with supervisors or co workers. We review the ALJ's decision only to determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether the ALJ's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We will not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the Commissioner's. A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-2307.opn.html">MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)<BR></A><BR> 1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-2307.opn.html">MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)<BR></A><BR> 1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5257a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Leslie M. Spitzer was on the brief for amicus curiae HIV Medicine Association in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Peter D. When it refused to hire him as a Foreign Service Officer because he is HIV positive. The State Department declined to hire him because he is HIV positive. Was as follows. Is to advocate American foreign policy. Foreign Service Officers are of two types. Specialists have positions requiring special skills. About 65 percent of these posts are considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031637.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment because it found that Rohan was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-4044.html">JANE L. V. BANGERTER<BR></A><BR> We are called upon to determine the legal vitality of several provisions of Utah's 1991 abortion law against the backdrop of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Recognizing that their legislation was a facial attack on prevailing Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. We are satisfied that any jurisdictional problems have been corrected and that appellate jurisdiction is present. Casey was argued April 22. Were unconstitutional. Section 302(3): Post 20 Week Abortion Ban The district court's first task after Casey was to determine the constitutionality of section 302 of the Act.3 The court held 3 Utah Code Ann. 76 7 302. The abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. (b) the pregnancy is the result of rape or rape of a child. That was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (c) the pregnancy is the result of incest. The incident was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (e). (4) The name of a victim reported pursuant to Subsection (b) or (c) is confidential and may not be revealed by law enforcement or any other party except upon approval of the victim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981327.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 1985 and state law.1 Hankins's primary allegations are that the City denied him a promotion to become the Director of its AIDS Activities Coordinating Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/061086P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arthur Dale Senty Haugen was committed as a sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous person to the custody of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (Offender Program). I. In 1996 Senty Haugen was indefinitely committed as a sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous person. Was placed in the custody of the Offender Program.2 The Offender Program operates at two Minnesota sites. Defendant Michael Tessner is the Chief Executive Officer of State Operated Services. His placement was ordered by the state district court which made findings of fact that Senty Haugen had sexually assaulted seven minors beginning when he was 18 or 19 years old. That Senty Haugen had engaged in sexual conduct with another Offender Program patient while the state's commitment petition was pending. 22 1 The Offender Program is responsible for providing treatment to several hundred patients3 in the State of Minnesota who have been committed to its custody. A patient is committed to the Offender Program if the state district court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is a sexual psychopathic personality and sexually dangerous person evidencing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB34D08DAF60F59F88256A070061B49A/$file/9699025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the district court's ruling that federal habeas review is barred. Smith and accomplice Joe Leonard Lambright were convicted of sexual assault. Firstdegree murder.1 The principal witness against them at trial was another accomplice. Each witness was brief. Each offered only a gen 1 Because the facts of the offense are set forth in our en banc opinion. The most mitigating factor in the case is the fact that Kathy Foreman wasn't prosecuted at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A834456359629A2288256E5A00707A7E/$file/9699025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse the district court's ruling that federal habeas review is barred. Smith and accomplice Joe Leonard Lambright were convicted of sexual assault. Firstdegree murder.1 The principal witness against them at trial was another accomplice. Each witness was brief. Each offered only a gen 1 Because the facts of the offense are set forth in our en banc opinion. The most mitigating factor in the case is the fact that Kathy Foreman wasn't prosecuted at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1296a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rich ard Wasserstrom was on brief. Were on brief. Section 112(b)(3)(A) requires that EPA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3294.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 consisted of general educational loans whose dischargeability is governed by the Bankruptcy <hr> Code at 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8) (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1296a.html">AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Frye argued the cause for the petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/001229P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute was presented to United States Magistrate Judge H. Cantrell's doctors have diagnosed him with a variety of mental impairments depression. Cantrell's primary treating physician was Mark Baltz. He was prescribed a veritable pharmacy of anti depressants and other medications. Cantrell was examined by several mental health professionals in connection with his benefits application. Inman reasoned that Cantrell was now </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in Arkansas state court in 1979 of the capital felony murder of Mary Lou York. He was sentenced to death for the murder and to life imprisonment for the robbery. Singleton's conviction and sentence for capital felony murder were affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in November 1981. The aggravated robbery conviction and sentence were vacated on double jeopardy grounds. That (1) he was not competent to be executed under Ford v. (2) he was denied his constitutional right to a jury selected from a venire representing a fair cross section of the community where he was tried. (3) he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Holding that Singleton's death sentence was invalid under the Eighth Amendment because the State had relied on an invalid aggravating factor. The court held that pecuniary gain was not a valid aggravating factor because it was also an element of the robberymurder charge. The Arkansas death penalty statute was unconstitutional. Singleton filed an action in state court claiming he was incompetent to be executed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200614602.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. The main issue in this appeal is whether a federal court must consider evidence first presented to the Social Security Appeals Council when it decides whether to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1528.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043139np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the parents of Timothy M. We will reverse. Lieutenants Sonia Veruette and Smith were responsible for implementing appropriate policies of the Prison. Shannon Quick and Timothy Gallu were counseling or healthcare employees at the Prison. Eighteen year old Kulp was committed to the Prison as a pretrial detainee on charges of burglary. That he was cooperative but upset. He knew or should have known of the commitment documentation and the Inmate Commitment Summary Report. Officer 3 Knepp noted on Kulp's Suicide Prevention Screening Questionnaire that Kulp was worried about his current situation. Incorrectly noted on the Questionnaire that Kulp did not have a psychiatric history or take psychiatric medication. That his alleged crime was not shocking in nature. As a result of the Questionnaire Kulp was assigned to an initial 48 hours administrative segregation under regular supervision. He did not have Kulp placed on a suicide watch. He did not have Kulp appropriately observed. She knew or should have known the contents of all the foregoing documentation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942981.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence he alleges was taken in violation of Miranda v. Intending to shoot the President while the President was jogging. Barbour discovered that the President was in Russia. His neighbor returned with his fiancee and a tape recorder. brother also was present. The agents were told that Barbour was going to the V.A. to seek treatment for a mental problem. information. Barbour was in the lobby awaiting treatment. Doherty brought him to his office where he was immediately joined by the special agents. McKenna and Sveum were identified as agents. Barbour indicated that he was aware that At the suppression it is a crime to attempt to kill the President. hearing. Barbour denied that Miranda warnings were ever recited. He would have understood them.1 The agents described Barbour as well mannered. Barbour was cooperative and appeared to Agent McKenna to be logical in his thinking. Which was read to Barbour. The form also indicated that no promises Barbour signed were being made in exchange for Barbour's consent. the form. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-4204_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the American Postal Workers Union. He was covered by a national collective bargaining agreement between the APWU and the Postal Service known as the National Agreement. Which certified that his absence was due to fatigue. The inclusive dates you were unable to work. Any medicines you are taking. This medical information is to be reviewed by the Postal Medical Officer. No. 03 4204 3 (2) You may be required to be examined by the Postal Medical Officer after your documentation is reviewed. The bill for this release for work exam will be paid by the Postal Service. She concluded that the information was insufficient to clear him for duty. A medical officer or contract physician evaluates the medical report and makes a medical assessment as to your ability to return to work before you are allowed to return. Were insufficient to clear him for duty because they did not describe the nature of treatment he received or list any medications he was taking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063448P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She is a high school graduate with four semesters of college. She reports to have struggled with anxiety and depression since childhood. When she was fired by her temporary service agency for absenteeism. Gaumer noted several times she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-21257.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is scheduled to be executed at 6:00 p.m. today. District court were premised on his argument that he is incompetent Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I Ogan was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of a police officer. the sufficiency of the On direct appeal. Ogan did not raise the claim that he was incompetent to be executed under the Ford standard. The court The district considered the claim on the merits and rejected it. court also applied the procedural bar to Ogan's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize the extent of his mental health problems. (2) he was incompetent to stand trial. (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request an adequate and accurate jury instruction on mitigating evidence and in failing to object to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/03-7004.htm">03-7004 -- CAINGLIT V. BARNHART -- 12/17/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Deborah Cainglit appeals the district court's order affirming the . Because the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and no legal errors . Cainglit was not disabled at step four of the five step sequential evaluation process. That she had the RFC to perform other work of a sedentary nature. <em>Id</em>. <p> We review the Commissioner's decision to determine only whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether legal errors occurred. <em>See Castellano v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ALJ decided that there was an insufficient match between the degree of severity alleged by the claimant as to her pain and the objective medical findings. It was found not to seriously interfere with her intellectual functioning. The ALJ was entitled to consider conflicting medical evidence in light of the entire 2 record in reaching these conclusions which are supported by substantial relevant evidence. So long as it is supported by substantial evidence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4FA6350BF0AEB53888256E7E007C3635/$file/0035948.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The following individuals have been substituted for their predecessors: Dirk Kempthorne for Cecil D. The officials now claim that those promises are not enforceable. The state officials have appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that the district court continues to have jurisdiction and that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the enforcement of the consent decrees. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The history of this case is a sad record of promises made and broken over two decades. The defendants1 have repeatedly promised to provide appropriate services to the plaintiffs. Who are a class of severely emotionally and mentally disabled children in the State of Idaho. The complaint was filed in this case on behalf of 2. Some of whom were known sexual predators and child molesters. Found that there were disputed issues of material fact as to the plaintiffs' claims under the U.S. The agreement also provided for continuing jurisdiction by the district court for five years or until the district court was satisfied by stipulation or otherwise that the claims for relief were adequately addressed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032785P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dorsch was arrested in January 2003 by a sheriff's deputy after he arrived at a county water board meeting intoxicated and carrying a concealed handgun. He was subsequently indicted for violation of § 922(g)(4) when it was learned that he had been involuntarily </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/994139P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walke was granted long term disability benefits in September 1994 under the hospital's Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/94-2981.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BARBOUR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence he alleges was taken in violation of <i>Miranda v. Intending to shoot the President while the President was jogging. Barbour discovered that the President was in Russia. Barbour's brother also was present. The agents were told that Barbour was going to the V.A. to seek treatment for a mental problem. Barbour was in the lobby awaiting treatment.<p> Doherty agreed to assist the agents in finding Barbour. Doherty brought him to his office where he was immediately joined by the special agents. McKenna and Sveum were identified as agents. Barbour indicated that he was aware that it is a crime to attempt to kill the President. Barbour denied that <i>Miranda</i> warnings were ever recited. He would have understood them.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/94-2981.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BARBOUR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence he alleges was taken in violation of <i>Miranda v. Intending to shoot the President while the President was jogging. Barbour discovered that the President was in Russia. Barbour's brother also was present. The agents were told that Barbour was going to the V.A. to seek treatment for a mental problem. Barbour was in the lobby awaiting treatment.<p> Doherty agreed to assist the agents in finding Barbour. Doherty brought him to his office where he was immediately joined by the special agents. McKenna and Sveum were identified as agents. Barbour indicated that he was aware that it is a crime to attempt to kill the President. Barbour denied that <i>Miranda</i> warnings were ever recited. He would have understood them.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/aug1999/981273.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or manic depression as it is sometimes called. The District Court held that even if Taylor did have a disability. Was not possible. She was not an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. We held its petition until the Supreme Court announced its decisions in two 2 then pending cases addressing whether disabilities under the ADA are judged with or without regard to mitigating measures. We have granted panel rehearing and vacated our prior opinion. Which was reported at 174 F.3d 142. We conclude that there are genuine factual disputes requiring a trial on whether Taylor's bipolar disorder substantially limits a major life activity while she is taking lithium. Our previous discussion of the interactive process is unaffected. We have incorporated it unchanged in this opinion. I Before she was terminated on October 28. When formal evaluations were instituted in the 1991 92 school year. While Taylor was at work during that week. Menzel and Ferrara were so disturbed by Taylor's behavior that they doubted her capacity to leave on a train by herself and had someone at the school district contact her son. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-4228.htm">01-4228 -- LEFLER V. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF UTAH, INC. -- 08/14/2003<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <strong><em>Factual Background</em></strong> <p> United is licensed in Utah. Employees contributed to the premiums.<strong> </strong> United was a fiduciary<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6002.opa.html">CRAYTON V. CALLAHAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crayton v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of a class action brought by mentally disabled persons who alleged that the defendants. Even though that is not a basis upon which the claim has been made.<p> Plaintiffs. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification and a hearing was held. Leaving only claims against the state that were predicated on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It never ruled upon class certification.<p> Plaintiffs allege that they should have been considered for benefits under two similar programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) pays benefits to persons who have contributed to the program and who are determined to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6002.opa.html">CRAYTON V. CALLAHAN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crayton v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of a class action brought by mentally disabled persons who alleged that the defendants. Even though that is not a basis upon which the claim has been made.<p> Plaintiffs. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification and a hearing was held. Leaving only claims against the state that were predicated on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It never ruled upon class certification.<p> Plaintiffs allege that they should have been considered for benefits under two similar programs administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) pays benefits to persons who have contributed to the program and who are determined to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1837.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Is a small not LYNCH. Where Ann Marie Guglielmi was employed as a Team Leader. Amego learned that other staff felt Guglielmi was not performing her job adequately and was putting patients at risk. That there was no other job reasonably available to her. Her employment was thus terminated. Holding that the EEOC had not made out a prima facie case that Guglielmi was an otherwise </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4222.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted on charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud. The alleged fraud involved billing for services that were not provided (ghost billing). Overstating what services were provided (upcoding). After one of the mail fraud counts was dismissed. A new trial was ordered for all but these two counts. Mitrione was sentenced to a term of 23 months and DeVore to 15 months. Restitution for each was set at $11. We will mention only those that have arguable merit. Are presented in the light most favorable to the verdict. Who was his assistant at the time. CPTs are listed in a book of codes used for medical billing which is published by the American Medical Association. The handbook for physicians provided: The provision of psychiatric services is limited . . . and must be personally provided by the physician who submits charges. Etc. are not reimbursable. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2194.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the Secretary's determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Was limited in his capacity for gross manipulation by the hands. We have held that the amount of weight that can properly be given the conclusions of non testifying. Non examining physicians </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/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-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3657.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is substituted as the defendant in lieu of the named defendant. Eric was no longer eligible to participate in that program. Illinois has a separate program providing at home care for adults who would otherwise have to be cared for in institutions. Funding under that program is capped at a level that is insufficient to pay for the extent of private duty nursing that Eric would need in order to remain at home. In that Illinois is refusing to provide the medical services that Eric requires in order to remain in the most community integrated setting appropriate for his needs. Which is his home. Reasoning that the ADA claim against the Director was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that the Rehabilitation Act claim failed as a matter of law because in home nursing care is not a service that Illinois currently provides to any adult individual. I. As this case was resolved on the basis of the pleadings. Eric was diagnosed with medulloblastoma. Medical treatment have impaired Eric's physical and mental functions and left him medically fragile. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1447.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this case is the meaning of that phrase. Jones was unaware of it. Jones signed an employment agreement that included express language making him an at will employee: The School District and the Employee recognize that the Employee is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/98-3133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Wilma A. I Greenfield was arrested during a January 1998 police raid on a house in which cocaine base was being packaged for sale. The applicable sentence in Green field's case was 60 months' imprisonment.1 Greenfield filed a memorandum seeking a downward departure from the guide 1 Based on Greenfield's offense level and criminal history. The PSR determined that the applicable guideline range was 87 108 months. Because that sentence was less than the minimum of the applicable guideline range. A copy of Hudak's written report was also admitted into evidence. Hudak learned that Greenfield was using marijuana heavily. Hudak found that Greenfield was respond ing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0163n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rule 50(a) provides that a court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0290p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05b0006p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED. ISSUES ON APPEAL Whether the bankruptcy court's determination that excepting the Debtor's student loans from discharge will impose an undue hardship on the Debtor. Was clearly erroneous. 2. An order is final if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0225.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Circuit Judge: Sammy Crystal Perkins was convicted by a North Carolina jury for the capital murder and rape of LaSheena Renae </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/98opinions/98-3133a.html">U.S. V. PILI GREENFIELD<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1282.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claimant first contends that the ALJ's conclusion that claimantcan meet the exertional requirements of light work is not supported bysubstantial medical evidence regarding claimant's residual functionalcapacity. It is true that the record doe not contain any medicalevaluation of claimant's physical residual functional capacity. That an ALJ is not qualified to interpret raw medical datain functional terms. We have held. The ALJ's conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence and itis necessary to remand for the taking of further functional evidence. By the objective medical evidence in record there is no evidence that the claimant has any exertional limitation for the performance of work activities. The claimant only complained of dizziness but it has not been established that this condition is a manifestation of the recurrence of the ischemic attacks and her treatment records does not reveal that the treating physicians considered this symptom or condition so severe as to require more intensive treatment.Although there is no dispute that claimant suffers from severe non exertional impairments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1288.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The disputedissues are (1) when did claimant's mental impairment (a)impose significant limitations and (b) reach a disablinglevel and (2) when did insured status expire. I Claimant was born in 1954 and is grammar schooleducated. The date theAppeals Council said claimant was last insured. Thefinal agency decision of which claimant seeks review is thatclaimant had no severe impairment prior to the expiration ofinsured status. A claimant mustestablish that his condition is totally disabling prior tothe expiration of his insured status. 1984 is not supported by substantial evidence. 1984 was extremely sparse. Two very cryptic reports were presented. Both doctors are generalpractitioners. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1590.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bartels's report of his interview with Matos stated: This 35 year old was seen on 8/9/96 for screening without benefit of any corroborative data except which he was willing and able to reveal. He was alert. He was oriented in three spheres. Mood was appropriate. Affect was within normal limits. A history of substance abuse was admitted. Current substance abuse was admitted. . . . Present suicidal ideation is denied. Present evidence of major depression was not noted. Hallucinations were denied. A history of psychiatric treatment was denied. Anticipated difficulties of adjustment were denied. Present family contact No. 02 1590 3 was reported. Need for present mental health services was denied. Was in urgent need of a mental health referral. There is no other evidence in the record indicating that Matos suffered from any psychiatric or psychological problems during his initial 10 month term of imprisonment in Joliet. Matos was on supervised release from his 1996 sentence when he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and without a license in November 1997. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Suggesting that any remarks by Gonzalez were motivated solely by a concern for plaintiff's health and physical condition. 3. Gonzalez questioned him about his age and made other age related remarks that the jury reasonably could have construed as evincing bias. Was never called to testify at trial Gonzalez's statements comprise potent evidence of age based animus. With whom Lespier & Munoz Noya was on brief. This is a ghost ship of an SELYA. The muted sound of voices through the fog but there is nothing solid to be grasped. Leaving things exactly as they were. Only five are worthy of extended comment.2 These include four evidence oriented propositions. Appellant's final claim is that the lower court erred in doubling the two awards. The standards of review that appertain to a trial court's denial of the usual post trial motions in civil cases are firmly settled. May reverse the denial of such a motion only if reasonable persons could not have reached the conclusion that the jury embraced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></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-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973542P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apfel has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration and is automatically substituted as appellee. Jacob was 13 years old and in the sixth grade. He was attending special education classes in school and had been held back a year when he was in kindergarten. Jacob was represented by counsel at the hearing. She said that they tease him because he is slow and that he explodes if he does not get his way. She reported that he was functioning at a third grade level in math and a fourth grade level in reading. She indicated that Jacob needs constant reassuring that he is doing his work correctly. Trying the case by the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 3 Medical records indicate that Jacob was slow to reach developmental milestones in early childhood. He was struck by a car at age four. Other medical conditions included in the reports were colds. The ALJ found that Jacob's intellectual functioning is within the borderline range. Which the ALJ concluded is a severe impairment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3251.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> Marjorie Wiederholt appeals from an order affirming the Commissioner's decision that she is not entitled to social security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. 1291. Wiederholt was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her right wrist in 1997. Her employment was terminated. She also was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Alleging that she was disabled because of pain in her hand and shoulder. After her claim was denied. The hearing was scheduled for August 22. Wiederholt was suffering from depression and/or anxiety. Wiederholt was examined by licensed psychologist David R. Who opined that she was suffering from severe depression. He noted that her ability to remember and recall information was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></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-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-3134a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Wilma A. Rouse and Gartmon were convicted and sentenced to prison for 57 months and 120 months. Checks were issued by the finance department. Because Health Plan employees knew that Glascoe was dating Gartmon. One was Donna Rouse. It was unclear who deposited the eighth. Nor was she ever employed by the printing company. The complaint falsely claimed that Rouse was vice president of the printing compa ny and that the company had printed materials for the Health Plan. Knowing that the money was for Gartmon. She filed three post trial motions that are now at issue in this appeal. Claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The district court determined that the abuse was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2019p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was convicted of assaulting a prison official in violation of 18 U.S.C. We find each of Leggett's claims to be without merit and will therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. Who was serving a prison term for bank robbery and assault at a federal penitentiary in Indiana. Was transferred to the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex in White Deer. Leggett's name was taken off the list of inmates eligible for single cells. Leggett was required to move his belongings to another cell in anticipation of being assigned a cellmate. Donn Troutman served as Leggett's unit manager at this time and was responsible for Leggett's housing assignment. When Leggett discovered that he was losing his single cell status. Leggett attempted additional blows which were deflected by Troutman. Who was five inches taller and fifty pounds heavier than Leggett. Was able to subdue him with the assistance of several prison guards. Was assigned to represent Leggett at his trial for the assault on Troutman. Who was several months' pregnant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/971155P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That civil commitment was warranted under section 4246. He asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because juvenile detainees are not subject to civil commitment under section 4246. Assuming that jurisdiction was proper. The district court erred in determining that he was mentally ill and dangerous. He was referred to Charter Hospital in Sioux Falls. He was placed in McKennan again in 1990 following an overdose of prescription medication. S.A. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent by the district court2 after he set his brother's stereo on fire.3 S.A. was placed on probation until the age of twenty one. S.A. was diagnosed as suffering from major depression with psychotic features. S.A.'s mental health problems peaked in 1995 while he was confined at the Lake Region Correction Center in Devil's Lake. Would have constituted arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 81. 3 2 2 were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1700.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The discrete question before us is whether substantial evidence supports the Secretary's conclusion that claimant retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform her past work as a secretary before her insured status expired. Claimant was evaluated by Dr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></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="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/993866P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Roberts was born on November 5. Roberts asserts that he is unable to work because of a learning disability and back problems. Thus that Roberts was not disabled within the meaning of the social security regulations. Arguing that the ALJ erroneously determined how his mental impairments affect his residual functional capacity and that the hypothetical question asked by the ALJ was flawed because it failed to include the full extent of his mental limitations. Our role on review is to determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance. Is enough that a reasonable mind would find it adequate to support the Commissioner's conclusion. In determining whether existing evidence is substantial. We may not reverse it because substantial evidence exists in the record that would have supported a contrary outcome. Or because we would have decided the case differently. Roberts argues that the ALJ's determinations regarding the effect of his mental impairments are flawed because they are not based on substantial evidence in the record and because the ALJ reached his conclusion without following proper procedure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-7081.htm">99-7081 -- RAY V. APFEL -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Edna Fay Ray appeals from an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner's determination that she was not entitled to Social Security disability insurance benefits prior to October 27. We affirm. <p> We review the Commissioner's decision to determine whether his factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record and to determine whether he applied the correct legal standards. <u>See</u> <u>Castellano v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></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-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1678p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053506np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. I. Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the procedural and factual background of this case. We need not reiterate them here except insofar as is helpful to our discussion. The ALJ's decision is the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denies a request for review. Our scope of review is limited to determining if the ALJ's denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). Substantial evidence is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5087a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Wilma A. With her on the brief was James J. We agree that Moritsugu was not the person to whom Farmer's treatment requests were appropriately addressed. That Moritsugu's response to Farmer's demands could not have constituted deliberate indif ference to her medical needs. I. Background A.Farmer's Efforts to Obtain Treatment Transsexualism is a gender identity disorder. The sufferers of which believe that they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="466"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/o