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 .

Did you mean military or cum or martial?

Your query military or ucmj or martial returned 3368 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER The court held that Plaintiff was lawfully recalled to active duty and court martialed in accordance with constitutional standards. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Charges were preferred against Plaintiff for violations of various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (
	GENE C. MCKINNEY V. THOMAS WHITE Argued the cause for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Was a Sergeant Major of the Army who was court martialed in 1998 and found guilty of obstructing justice in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge We are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees and costs to a
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Paul D. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of appellants. 2 Jay Alan Sekulow and James M. Jr. were on the brief of amicus curiae The American Center for Law & Justice supporting appellants. With them on the briefs were Benjamin S. Vladeck were on the brief of amici curiae of fifteen law professors in support of appellee. Berz was on the brief for amici curiae Louise Doswald Beck. Paust was on the brief for amicus curiae International Law and National Security Law Professors in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amici curiae Jenny S. Moltenbrey was on the brief for amici curiae 305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians in support of appellee. Thompson was on the brief for amici curiae Eleven Legal Scholars in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman Al Bahlul in support of appellee. 3 Kurt J. Carter were on the brief for amici curiae Military Law Practitioners and Academicians Kevin J.
	00-3176 -- RICKS V. NICKELS -- 07/09/2002 1 700 are correctional. The issue presented is whether the Feres doctrine bars a military prisoner's Bivens claims for damages arising from alleged injuries sustained after the prisoner has received a complete punitive discharge from service. See Feres v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue in this case is whether such a certificate was required. Or whether the Bank's production of the Flowers' financial records pursuant to the subpoena was exempt from the RFPA. Is an investigative proceeding that is required under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) before a general court martial may be convened. FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK 9433 conduct in response to the Army's Article 32 subpoena was within the RFPA's exemption for information disclosed in the course of litigation between the government and a private citizen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because subpoenas are not authorized in Article 32 proceedings. The subpoena was not lawfully issued. It acted at its peril and it is not entitled to the protection of the RFPA exemptions on which it relies. Judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate. We also conclude that the district court should have granted the Flowers' motion for leave to amend. The Flowers' challenge to the denial of their motion for reconsideration is moot.
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue in this case is whether such a certificate was required. Or whether the Bank's production of the Flowers' financial records pursuant to the subpoena was exempt from the RFPA. Is an investigative proceeding that is required under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) before a general court martial may be convened. FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK 9433 conduct in response to the Army's Article 32 subpoena was within the RFPA's exemption for information disclosed in the course of litigation between the government and a private citizen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because subpoenas are not authorized in Article 32 proceedings. The subpoena was not lawfully issued. It acted at its peril and it is not entitled to the protection of the RFPA exemptions on which it relies. Judgment on the pleadings was inappropriate. We also conclude that the district court should have granted the Flowers' motion for leave to amend. The Flowers' challenge to the denial of their motion for reconsideration is moot.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by Michael Todd Brosius from an order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Brosius was convicted of unpremeditated murder following a general court martial. He is serving a sentence of imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Army Court of Military Review. Who is imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg. When Ivon was found. Her legs were protruding from under a pickup truck. Ivon's car was found parked next to the pickup. The back seat of the car was stained with blood. A witness who had passed Ivon's car at about 3:00 a.m. stated that the windows were fogged. He thought that the occupants were having sex. Numerous witnesses described Brosius's behavior during the hours after Ivon's body was found. He told another witness that he had just come from working out in the gym although the gym was closed at the time. He told another witness that a girl who had given him a ride home two hours earlier was dead and that he suspected her boyfriend.
	OPINION/ORDER Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB.... 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action. The court held that the order was and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. CONTENTIONS Ethredge contends that the administrative order barring signs that
	ETHREDGE V. HAIL This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Ethredge v. Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB....<p> <p> 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action.<p> <p> Instead of removing the stickers. The court held that the order was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellee </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8638.opa.html">ETHREDGE V. HAIL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ethredge v. Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB....<p> <p> 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action.<p> <p> Instead of removing the stickers. The court held that the order was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellee </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/05-5196b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. I Veitch is an evangelical Protestant minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church. There seems to be little doubt that the 3 relationship between the two was quite unfriendly. Buchmiller repeatedly criticized him for his insistence on preaching sola scriptura the doctrine that Biblical teaching alone is authoritative. Which is accepted by many Protestant faiths but rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches. Was assigned to investigate Veitch's complaint. Zoeller concluded that Veitch's allegation of religious discrimination was unsubstantiated. Zoeller also found that Veitch's preaching was derogatory toward other faiths. Veitch claims that he was on the verge of filing a second EO Complaint in response to Buchmiller's continued hostility. Veitch's rebarbative missive was a four page broadside attack on Buchmiller's command and character. Veitch was presented with a charge sheet in February. He was charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5163.html">GABRIEL J. MARTINEZ V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Tara A. Of counsel were <u>Aileen M. </span><st1:State><span style='font family:Arial'>DC</span></st1:State></st1:place><span style='font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also of counsel was <u>Captain David E. Martinez<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='ms </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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3263.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was R. Because the AJ did not err in finding that Pittman was reemployed following his military service. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Pittman was employed as a Senior Officer Specialist with the agency at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. Marine Corps Reserve and was activated in March 2003 to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pittman's performance at the agency was more than satisfactory and had warranted a number of performance based awards. Pittman was stationed at the Whitehorse detention facility in Iraq. Pittman was found guilty at a courtmartial proceeding of one count of dereliction of duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/991222U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted in November 1971 by a general court martial at Fort Leavenworth. His petition was. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition which should have been filed in the court of conviction. The court martial which tries criminal charges against a member of the military is convened that is. Comes into existence only after charges have been preferred. The court martial is disbanded. We have relied upon a variety of procedures to ensure that a military accused's rights are fully protected. Both Murphy and Walters suggest that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces while noting that military courts have managed to address collateral issues raised by military defendants has concluded that section 2255 is not available for bringing collateral challenges to military convictions. 3 The Supreme Court in Gusik v. Established the general rule that habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners should not be entertained by federal civilian courts until all available remedies within the military court system have been exhausted. </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/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5165.html">MOYER STEPHEN F. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>William S. With him on the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Lt. Also on the brief was <U>Capt. Severance pay that he would have received had he been medically discharged. As he alleges he would have been if he had not been wrongfully discharged pursuant to his tendered resignation. It ruled that his alternative theory of jurisdiction alleged non compliance with an Army regulation was legally incorrect. His resignation was the product of misinformation rather than solely from an impending court martial and Army regulations required that his medical discharge be processed before his discharge pursuant to his resignation became final. Because the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in finding that Moyer had voluntarily resigned and correctly concluded that his regulatory claim was legally incorrect. That the examination was ". Charges were filed against Moyer under the UCMJ. On March 14 an additional charge was filed. The charges were that Moyer had violated Army regulations pertaining to handling classified information and that he had committed adultery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5064.html">ARMSTRONG V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5158.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Peter D. Of counsel was Charles Daniel Musselman. Metz's separation from the United States Air Force was involuntary and granting his motion for judgment upon the administrative record. Because Metz failed to assert that his separation was involuntary before the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records ( </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=05-3305.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is presently incarcerated at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Fort Leavenworth. In such appellate proceedings the appellant is entitled to representation by a military lawyer. The record of trial is reviewed by the office of the Judge Advocate General to determine whether the findings or sentence is supported in law and whether the sentence is appropriate. Where he would have been entitled to a lawyer. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Appellant cites no authority that such counsel is constitutionally required. A service member convicted by court martial is entitled to appeal under Article 66. Where appellate counsel is provided. The appropriate vehicle for requesting counsel is to file a motion for appointment of <hr> counsel in the proceeding where counsel would be involved. In the event that motion is denied. The proper course is to take an appeal or to seek administrative or subsequent habeas review. It is not to proceed to a different court and ask that court to order appointment of counsel. </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3225.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> Sherrill was convicted at a general court martial of absence without leave. He was sentenced to twelve years' confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Which were denied. Sherrill contended (1) the court martial lacked jurisdiction because the presiding military judge was not properly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-5158a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Titus was on the briefs. Were on the brief. New was serving in the United States Armed Forces as a Medical Specialist in Au gust 1995 when he received notice that his unit was to be deployed to the Republic of Macedonia as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5098.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. When he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. Was appointed to represent Mr. Clifford that the board was scheduled to convene for a hearing on January 22. Which was on May 26. The ETS establishes a deadline beyond which the board is not permitted to meet. Before the members of the board were sworn in. Clifford was immediately reduced from his rank of Sergeant 04 5098 4 First Class (E 7) to the lowest enlisted grade of Private (E 1) as of March 31. Was separated from the Army on May 15. Was discharged on May 19. To have his discharge upgraded to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="419"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1464.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ackerman's motion is dismissed as unnecessary. He was sentenced. Ackerman claimed: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="417"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-5023a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Henry L. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Was convicted by a court martial of violating a lawful order to add United Nations insignia a shoulder patch and a field cap to his basic uniform. He was troubled that wearing U.N. insignia as part of his uniform would manifest an involuntary or fictional shift in his allegiance from the government of the United States to the United Nations. New was court martialed and charged with violating Article 92(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 892(2)). Which it is his duty to obey. New also argued that the uniform order couldn't be lawful because the Army's participation in the U.N. mission was itself unlawful. The military judge a law officer presiding over the panel but not serving as one of its members rejected both sets of arguments: he concluded that the order was consistent with AR 670 1 and that the legality of the deployment was a nonjusticiable political question. New argued that the military judge erred in ruling that the lawfulness of the order was a legal question for him to decide rather than an element of the offense to be decided by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-5382a.pdf">O:\OPN\RAY\PIERSALL V. WINTER\PIERSALL V. WINTER V16 FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Matthew S. Higgins were on the brief of amicus curiae The National Veterans Legal Services Program in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. 1998 then Lieutenant Commander Piersall was the Executive Officer and Command Duty Officer of the USS La Jolla. The final agency action under review is in fact the decision of a designated representative of the Secretary of the Navy approving the recommendation of the Board. * 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="368"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5067a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/97-3062.wpd.html">SPINDLE V. TILLERY<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Spindle was convicted by a general court martial at Fort Shafter. Whose sodomized body was found in an abandoned bomb shelter. Spindle was the testimony of an eyewitness. Who was declared unavailable at the time of trial.(2) Id. Testimony was introduced that Mr. Spindle was sentenced. The district court determined he was not entitled to any relief and dismissed his petition. Hubbard was convicted of the same crimes in the same court martial. Which is the equivalent of a preliminary hearing. Private Courtney's testimony at the Article 32 hearing was introduced against Mr. (2) he was denied the right to confrontation when the former testimony of Private Courtney was admitted at trial. (5) he was improperly convicted by a two thirds vote and the jury was not properly instructed on the vote necessary to impose life imprisonment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0016p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Witham raised five issues for habeas review before the district court: (1) that there was no verbatim record of the trial proceedings. (3) that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the prosecution only subpoenaed two of fourteen witnesses Witham had requested to be procured for his defense. (5) that his Fifth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated at trial. Witham's main contention before us appears to be that the district court should have Under military law. The Convening Authority is the military com manding o fficer who is authorized to convene and refer charges to a court martial. The Convening Autho rity was M ajor General R ay Smith. 1 1 No. 02 5700 Witham v. No certificate of appealability was required for us to hear this appeal from the denial of this federally court martialed defendant's habeas corpus petition. Where three of Witham's claims were fully and fairly litigated in the military courts. The remaining two claims were raised for the first time in the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="340"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-3214.htm">03-3214 -- WRIGHT V. COMMANDANT -- 04/09/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Brett Wright appeals the district court's decision denying him habeas corpus relief. We affirm. <p> Federal civil courts have only limited authority to review court martial proceedings. <em>See Burns v. If the military courts have fully and fairly reviewed Pvt. The trial record was incomplete. We nevertheless conclude these claims do not warrant habeas relief. <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5190a.html">DICKSON D. V. SECY DEF<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="321"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/001300P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stuckey challenges the sentence by claiming that four prior drug convictions stemming from a military court martial should not have been used to enhance his sentence as an armed career criminal. BACKGROUND Stuckey was charged in a two count indictment. Was delivering presents to his relatives in Arkansas on Christmas Day. He was driving over ninety miles per hour down Interstate 40 when stopped by Arkansas state trooper Sam Koons. Stuckey was driving a car owned by Sheila Gray. The other items in the duffle bag were men's clothes. Gray came to the police station and was asked if she owned any guns. The jury learned that the handgun was traced to a sale made in February 1998 by Ray Abel. Stuckey was the purchaser. The court found that Stuckey was subject to an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4 as an armed career criminal. Under which Stuckey was found to have: (a) distributed 4.52 grams of marijuana on August 26. Stuckey was arrested December 25. The guideline range would have been 51 to 63 months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="318"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case involves a claim by the plaintiff the appellant in this court that his status as a commissioned officer in the Rhode Island Army National Guard was wrongfully terminated. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for Rhode Island. This appeal followed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="316"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="316"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/02-5082.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="316"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/02-5082.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Andrew M. Of counsel was Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act? 1 Second. Is withdrawn. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action because the facts of the case do not bring it within the alleged source? Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there matters that are nonjusticiable because of their unique military implications? Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty he should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. Therefore under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 he should have been retired for disability. The matter was exclusively one for military determination. Appeal was timely taken. In light of the statutes on which the cause was based and the facts alleged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5149.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Lieutenant Commander Armando A. The appellant challenges his conviction on two grounds: (1) his invocation of military postconviction proceedings either extended the limitations period for challenging his courtmartial conviction or created a new cause of action for which there was a new period of limitations. I The basic facts relating to the issues we decide are largely undisputed. The appellant Norbert Basil MacLean III was a seaman in the Navy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="305"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5319a.html">ROBERT VINSON BRANNUM V. WILLIAM LAKE<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="305"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that Moore was not denied due process in the military tribunals and that Moore's double jeopardy argument was waived. Moore was stopped for driving while intoxicated. Moore was charged with driving while intoxicated. Moore was sentenced to five years confinement. Questions of fact resolved by military courts are not subject to collateral attack. . . . The [Court of Federal Claims'] limited function was to determine whether the military tribunal gave fair consideration to . . . Moore argues that the Court of Federal Claims' holding that his due process rights were not violated was in error. He asserts that his due process rights were violated because he was charged with violating the order revoking his driving privileges under Article 90 instead of Article 92(2). He claims that charging him under Article 90 was arbitrary because United States v. Moore We have argues that if we deny his due process challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-2290.htm">99-2290 -- WATSON V. BECKEL -- 03/19/2001<BR></A><BR> District Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200212/01-5319a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Evan M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Senior Circuit Judge: Robert Brannum is an Individual Mobilization Augmentee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="303"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-3106.htm">00-3106 -- HAEGER V. LANSING -- 02/09/2001<BR></A><BR> Haeger was formerly an enlisted member of the United States Navy. He argued that the court martial lacked jurisdiction because the military judge was designated in violation of the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution and that the military judge lacked the necessary independence because he had not been appointed for a fixed term. Including: (1) that the court martial was improper because the convening authority was one of his accusers. (3) that he was coerced into signing a pretrial agreement because the initial description of the charges did not refer to them as non capital. His sentence and conviction are invalid. <p> The district court denied Mr. Our review of the decisions of military courts <p> is extremely deferential. If the petitioner's claims have been fully and fairly considered by the military courts. We will generally deny relief. <u>Lips v. (4) have received inadequate consideration in the military courts or had the wrong legal standards applied. <u>See</u> <u>Khan v. A federal court will not review the claim unless the prisoner establishes cause and prejudice for failing to raise the error. <u>See</u> <u>Lips</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-3143.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Jr. was tried and convicted by general court martial (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. All of which were committed against his minor daughter. He was sentenced to. Eighteen years confinement and was imprisoned in Fort Leavenworth. When his petition was filed in the district court. He claimed 1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support his convictions. Both issues were resolved against Rios. After his petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court. He asserted three substantive grounds for relief: 1) he was compelled to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment by way of the telephone conversation with his daughter. 2) he was denied his right to confront a witness. Was assigned to his daughter's juvenile dependency case. Jarvis was unavailable to testify at trial. Her report was admitted. 3) he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-3399.htm">01-3399 -- SMITH V. COMMANDANT -- 09/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Patrick M. In the event the fine was not paid by the time petitioner was considered for parole. Petitioner would be further confined for additional fifty years or until the fine is paid. That the fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. 000 fine was unconstitutional. Petitioner asserted the following claims: (1) the military judge was statutorily unqualified. 826(b) because he was not an active member of a federal bar or the bar of the highest court of a state at the time of the court martial. (3) petitioner's guilty plea was coerced and involuntary and amounted to an <em>Alford</em> plea. Petitioner was never contacted by the Defense Appellate Division and he was deprived of his right to counsel under 10 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="289"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-9543.htm">99-9543 -- CUSTER COUNTY ACTION ASSOCIATION V. GARVEY -- 07/19/2001<BR></A><BR> Petitioners further claim implementation of the Initiative will violate their property rights under the Third and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. <p> We exercise jurisdiction over the FAA's final order pursuant to 49 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-6171.htm">02-6171 -- ROBERTS V. CALLAHAN -- 02/24/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-6047.htm">03-6047 -- GONZALEZ V. U.S. AIR FORCE -- 02/24/2004<BR></A><BR> While Plaintiff was an active duty member of the United States Air Force. In July of that year Plaintiff was temporarily assigned to Altus Air Force Base. Plaintiff attended an on base party which was taking place in an open patio or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5149a.html">KIDWELL BILLY RAY V. DEPT ARMY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08FFD8702BBEDF5588256B83001A001F/$file/0010251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15. Antonakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. That opinion was filed January 18. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we con4596 clude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. The search warrant DEA Agent Meade obtained recites that a search of Hitchcock's home is permitted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/ada6f9180269309c88256e5a00707c6e/$FILE/0010251.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher This appeal was taken under submission following oral argument on May 15. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we conclude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. We nevertheless vacate Hitchcock's sentence and remand for resentencing because Hitchcock was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). A provision we have recently held to be facially unconstitutional under Apprendi. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/85200789e9a78aac88256ab000811293/$FILE/0010251.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher This appeal was taken under submission following oral argument on May 15. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we conclude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. We nevertheless vacate Hitchcock's sentence and remand for resentencing because Hitchcock was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). A provision we have recently held to be facially unconstitutional under Apprendi. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/848cbadcc721dde888256c0900599f8b/$FILE/0010251.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15. Antonakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. That opinion was filed January 18. Is amended as follows: At page 4610 of the Slip op. Amend the last two sentences in the paragraph before the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ADA6F9180269309C88256E5A00707C6E/$file/0010251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher This appeal was taken under submission following oral argument on May 15. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we conclude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. We nevertheless vacate Hitchcock's sentence and remand for resentencing because Hitchcock was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). A provision we have recently held to be facially unconstitutional under Apprendi. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85200789E9A78AAC88256AB000811293/$file/0010251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher This appeal was taken under submission following oral argument on May 15. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we conclude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. We nevertheless vacate Hitchcock's sentence and remand for resentencing because Hitchcock was sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). A provision we have recently held to be facially unconstitutional under Apprendi. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/08ffd8702bbedf5588256b83001a001f/$FILE/0010251.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15. Antonakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. That opinion was filed January 18. We must also decide whether evidence should be suppressed that was gathered under a search warrant obtained and executed on November 16. Since we con4596 clude that the search was within the scope of the warrant. Was selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to other military personnel on his base. Because Hitchcock is a civilian. The calls were made from the DEA field office and were monitored using DEA equipment. NCIS Agents Moran and Rzepka were present at Hitchcock's interrogation. As did two CID agents who were present. Four were seized by CID investigators. Hitchcock was charged in a superseding indictment filed on April 21. Hitchcock argued that the search and seizure was conducted without a valid warrant and that no grounds existed to justify a search without a warrant. The search warrant DEA Agent Meade obtained recites that a search of Hitchcock's home is permitted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="282"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/848CBADCC721DDE888256C0900599F8B/$file/0010251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher Initially this appeal was submitted following oral argument on May 15. Antonakeas was decided prior to our filing of the original opinion. That opinion was filed January 18. Is amended as follows: At page 4610 of the Slip op. Amend the last two sentences in the paragraph before the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="280"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/02-3029.htm">02-3029 -- TAYLOR V. ANDRASCHKO -- 07/05/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Curtis Taylor ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="279"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043002np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) OPINION PER CURIAM This is an appeal by Thomas E. Fell was convicted in 1989 of felony murder. He is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 25 years. His conviction was affirmed by the Army Court of Military Review. 1 and review was denied by the Court of Military Appeals. Who was at the time imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood in White Deer. We will affirm.2 The United States District Courts have jurisdiction under 28 The Army Court of Military Review is now known as the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B) provides that a notice of appeal be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment where the United States is a party. Judgment was entered in this case on January 27. 2004 was filed several months too late. A timely filed Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration will toll the time for taking an appeal. Fell's motion for reconsideration was not filed until February 23. The Court's order doing so thus is a nullity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/03-5270a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/023945u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because ArceGaribay was placed in deportation proceedings prior to April 1. His final order of deportation was entered by the BIA after October 31. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. We will deny the petition for review. We will recite only those facts relevant to the issues before us. The IJ held a one day hearing at which Arce Garibay was the only witness. He testified that he was born and raised in a rural region of Peru that in later 2 years became closely linked with the Shining Path terrorist organization. He subsequently entered a military school in Lima that was affiliated with the Peruvian military. The Shining Path ambushed a bus in which he was traveling. He claimed the terrorists shot him when they discovered he was associated with the military. That he was able to escape by diving into nearby bushes. He was later promoted to second grade officer and placed in charge of a company of ninety soldiers. He testified that he was responsible for ensuring the maintenance and repairs of the aircraft at his base. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5127.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Major Louis A. The criminal charges were dismissed. The ultimate question in this appeal is whether that agreement barred the Army from subsequently court martialling the defendant for a different offense arising from the same conduct as the District of Columbia charge. I The basic facts are undisputed. The Office of the Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia was renamed the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. (This is a procedure under which certain defendants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Insofar as they are germane to this proceeding. Are not seriously disputed. His primary mission was to keep Bangor based military aircraft in a state of combat preparedness. Contending that appellant's reassignment was justified by discipline problems within the maintenance unit and by the need to bolster flagging morale. 3 Durgin. Can appellant be said to have suffered injury in his capacity as a civilian worker. If appellant was 3An investigator for the Maine Human Rights Commission found reason to believe that defendants discriminated against appellant. A parallel state action was removed to federal court and then consolidated with the original action. The parties agree that the state law issues are now moot and. Can his injury form the basis for a justiciable civil rights claim against the defendants (all of whom are military officers)? Answering the second query will require us to reexamine our governing precedent on justiciability in light of recent case law elsewhere. This balkanization of technicians' work is belied by Congress's description of the functions that ANG technicians serve. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="255"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959262.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec96/95-9262.opa.html">BENNETT V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bennett v. That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec96/95-9262.opa.html">BENNETT V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bennett v. That the soldier was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Attended the rehearsal of a band of which he was a member. Williams was carrying a black nylon bag that concealed a personal .380 caliber semi automatic pistol. Was in the room along with Risby when Williams arrived. Bennett also alleges that the Government was liable for failing to adequately supervise the dormitory where she suffered her injuries. Show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3367.htm">00-3367 -- PAALAN V. NICKELS -- 08/31/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5146.htm">02-5146 -- DAUGHERTY V. U.S. -- 07/17/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Retired Navy Commander Marshall D. We affirm. <p> <center><strong>I.</strong></center> <p> A full factual and procedural history is set forth in the magistrate judge's thirty six page report and recommendations and in the district court's ten page order adopting most of those recommendations and dismissing the suit. Who is subject to the Commander in Chief for the Special Operations Command). Commander Daugherty's unit was permanently assigned to a special operations combatant command unit in Spain under the operational command authority of Army Brigadier General Canavan (who. Is subject to the Commander in Chief . Once he was assigned to Brigadier General Canavan's special operations unit. He further asserts that any administrative control over him was either (1) assigned to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Naval Forces in Europe through a clause assigning base operating support to that commander in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="252"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3018.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> II is a former military prisoner at the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. The Supreme Court held that members of the military cannot bring claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="251"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-8039.htm">00-8039 -- NELSON V. GERINGER -- 07/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Who were dismissed from their positions as Assistant Adjutant Generals of the Wyoming National Guard. The underlying facts and claims brought by plaintiffs are substantially the same for both cases. The state of Wyoming appeals and we affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE338D4688D3477288256D5D007CB33D/$file/0256063.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a member of the United States Air Force or a member of an air national guard or reserve squadron since 1986. Zaputil was transferred later that year and offered a commission in January of 1999. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="243"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/00-3127.htm">00-3127 -- EVANS V. LANSING -- 07/07/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed his petition without prejudice pending resolution of his direct appeal before the Navy Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. <p> The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that <p> implicit in the congressional scheme embodied in the [Uniform] Code [of Military Justice] is the view that the military court system generally is adequate to and responsibly will perform its assigned task. . . . [T]his congressional judgment must be respected and . . . it must be assumed that the military court system will vindicate servicemen's constitutional rights. We have recognized this. In holding that <u>federal courts normally will not entertain habeas petitions by military prisoners unless all available military remedies have been exhausted.</u> <p> <u>Schlesinger v. A federal court will not review the claim unless the prisoner establishes cause and prejudice for failing to raise the error. <u>See</u> <u>Lips v. Nor is this a case in which a conscientious objector or a civilian. Was improperly subjected to military court martial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-3307.htm">01-3307 -- RUIZ-GARCIA V. LANSING -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Rafael A. Pled guilty to and was convicted by a military judge sitting as a general court martial. He was sentenced. He contends that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective. <p> Our standard of review is an exceptionally narrow one. Issues that were not raised before the military courts will not be considered. Unless the petitioner can show </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Gregory R. Of counsel were David M. We reverse and remand for adjudication on the merits of whether the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious. He was arrested and charged with a sex felony. The Board found that Strickland's plea was induced by erroneous advice from his commanding officer. The Assistant Secretary found that factors other than the incorrect advice actually The Assistant Secretary is the Secretary of the Navy's designee for final agency decisions on correction of personal records. 32 C.F.R. § 700.324 (2004). 05 5012 2 2 induced the plea. Was the final authority regarding requests for military records corrections. statute are as follows: (a) (1) The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice . . . . Congress eliminated the Secretary's discretion once the application for correction was submitted to the Board. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="238"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-3273.htm">00-3273 -- TOWNSEND V. LANSING -- 04/02/2001<BR></A><BR> Townsend was a deputy accounting and finance officer at San Vito Air Station in Italy. She was also convicted of stealing and conspiring to steal a U.S. Townsend was sentenced to eight years of confinement. Because she was unwilling. Townsend's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="235"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5103a.html">THOMAS B. MUDD V. THOMAS WHITE<BR></A><BR> Ar gued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-5987.man.html">JIMENEZ V. UNITED STATES (10/30/1998, NO. 97-5987)<BR></A><BR> We affirm the judgment of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT</CENTER> </P> <P> Jimenez was a seaman recruit in the United States Navy. He was found guilty of violating Article 121 (Larceny) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at a court martial on August 21. His conviction was ultimately affirmed on appeal. He was separated from active duty on May 4. While his case was on appeal. He was admitted to the hospital with an active duty identification card stamped </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-5987.man.html">JIMENEZ V. UNITED STATES (10/30/1998, NO. 97-5987)<BR></A><BR> We affirm the judgment of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT</CENTER> </P> <P> Jimenez was a seaman recruit in the United States Navy. He was found guilty of violating Article 121 (Larceny) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at a court martial on August 21. His conviction was ultimately affirmed on appeal. He was separated from active duty on May 4. While his case was on appeal. He was admitted to the hospital with an active duty identification card stamped </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5103a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Was convicted by a military tribunal for his alleged role in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Claiming that the action of the Secretary was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="230"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-3388.htm">01-3388 -- RIBINSON V. ANDRASCHKO -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Melvin Robinson. Pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and was convicted by general court martial of attempted unpremeditated murder. (2) in finding that petitioner's statements to the police were admissible under <em>Oregon v. That confession is admissible if suspect initiates the discussion and totality of circumstances reveals waiver is knowing. Intelligent). <p> A federal district court's habeas review of a military court martial proceeding is limited. It will not review a petitioner's claim if the military courts fully and fairly considered the claims asserted. <em>Lips v. This court has held that if an issue was raised before the military courts. Four conditions must be met before a district court's habeas review of a military conviction is appropriate: (1) the asserted error is of substantial constitutional dimension. (2) the issue is one of law rather than fact. (3) there are no military considerations that warrant different treatment of the constitutional claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/03-1056.htm">03-1056 -- BARBER V. U.S. ARMY -- 12/18/2003<BR></A><BR> Admitting she disobeyed a direct order and was discharged under less than honorable conditions after asking for and agreeing to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="225"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5118.html">WAGNER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Eugene R. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Captain Steven D. Which held that the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records ( ABCMR ) was not arbitrary. Any resulting error was harmless.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because we are unable to ascertain whether the Army s violation of its regulation was harmless. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7212a.html">EL-FADL HASSAN V. CTRL BNK JORDAN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="222"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-3311.htm">99-3311 -- CURRY V. U.S. DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS -- 06/12/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Bobby R. The extent of our review is limited. (4) have received inadequate consideration in the military courts or had the wrong legal standards applied. <em>See Khan</em>. When an issue is briefed and argued to a military court. We have carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975987.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT Jimenez was a seaman recruit in the United States Navy. He was found guilty of violating Article 121 (Larceny) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at a court martial on August 21. His conviction was ultimately affirmed on appeal. He was separated from active duty on May 4. While his case was on appeal. He was admitted to the hospital with an active duty identification card stamped </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3264.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.(2) In August 2003 Gonzales was convicted by a military tribunal of charges Gonzales does not specify in his petition and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. Gonzales' sentence was subsequently reduced by the convening authority to a term of twelve years in accordance with what Gonzales characterizes as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3398.htm">00-3398 -- RICKS V. NICKELS -- 08/28/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner John M. He was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. <p> Thereafter. Both our review and the district court's review of petitioner's court martial is limited to four conditions. The claimed errors must (1) have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="218"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2053A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In the first section of today's opinion we will present a compressed version of that narrative. In the second section of this opinion we will summarize the interim rulings announced in our prior opinion. In the third section of this opinion we will set forth the substance of that court's responsive ruling and apply those teachings to the pending appeal.<STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="217"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/06-5241c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was James R. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Because there is evidence in the record that supports the Army's decision to deny Aguayo's application for conscientious objector status. When he was 30 years old. Aguayo answered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="214"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/952158P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was Henry v. Department We conclude that BCNR's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that it was in fact We therefore reverse the judgment of *The HONORABLE JOHN B. Henry's case in painstaking detail and concluded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5043.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Paalan was on active duty in the Navy. He was arrested on charges of murder. Paalan was approaching the end of his enlistment period. He was scheduled to be transferred to the Naval Fleet Reserve at the end of the month in which he was arrested. When he was arrested. The Navy involuntarily extended his discharge date so that it could continue to have jurisdiction over the charges against him. Paalan was ultimately convicted on a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. Paalan is incarcerated at Ft. Which held that the Untied States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to military personnel while on active duty. Paalan was on active duty at the time of the alleged injuries. Contending that he was entitled to various forms of relief. He also claimed that he was 04 5043 2 entitled to just compensation for certain personal property that the government had taken from him. Before the remaining claims were resolved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-3203.htm">02-3203 -- DAVIS V. LANSING -- 03/28/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Petitioner Christian Davis. 1291 and affirm. <p> Davis was convicted by general court martial of fraudulent enlistment. Was sentenced to confinement for life. Davis' request for habeas relief before the Army Court was denied. (2) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by counsel failing to raise the jurisdiction claim. (4) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because there was no laboratory testing for gun residue. (5) the victim's diary in the possession of the prosecution contained exculpatory evidence and was withheld from the defense. (6) he was denied his statutory right to have appellate defense counsel represent him before the United States Supreme Court. The district court determined that Davis was not entitled to relief. <p> Our review of habeas claims in connection with military trials is extremely limited. If the claims asserted in the petition were given </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="211"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1166.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is ammended as follows: On cover under list of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="208"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3256.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stanley Johnson was convicted in 1982 by general court martial of rape. Claiming that he was incompetent when he committed the crime and that there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction. Federal courts have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions brought by individuals convicted by court martial under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Is limited. We will not grant habeas relief </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062240np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clyde Mansfield was convicted of murder by an Air Force court martial and sentenced to life imprisonment. Mansfield was again convicted of murder and re sentenced to life imprisonment. Mansfield was transferred to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confined at the United States Penitentiary. Mansfield was employed at the Unicor Federal Prison Industry at Lewisburg. Mansfield was transferred from Lewisburg to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield. He was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Butner. He was returned to Lewisburg where. While Mansfield was at Butner. When he was transferred back to Lewisburg his habeas petition was During the pendency of this action. Mansfield claimed that he was entitled to an earlier release because he had been denied good time credit and the Commission had failed to set a mandatory parole date. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-3120.htm">02-3120 -- SPEAR V. ANDRASCHKO -- 04/30/2003<BR></A><BR> He raises seven issues on appeal.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975987.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT Jimenez was a seaman recruit in the United States Navy. He was found guilty of violating Article 121 (Larceny) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice at a court martial on August 21. His conviction was ultimately affirmed on appeal. He was separated from active duty on May 4. While his case was on appeal. He was admitted to the hospital with an active duty identification card stamped </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/99-3123.htm">99-3123 -- INGHAM V. TILLERY -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was also convicted of sodomy. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge. Assault offenses was insufficient. The specifications for the offenses were multiplicious for sentencing. The denial of his challenges for cause of two court members was erroneous. His civilian trial counsel was ineffective. The sentence was inappropriate. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. The conviction and sentence were upheld. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. Petitioner challenged his conviction on the grounds that <p> (1) the evidence was insufficient. <p> (2) defense counsel was ineffective. <p> (3) some charges were multiplicious. <p> (4) challenges for cause against two members of the court were erroneously denied. 142 (1953) (recognizing limited function of civil courts is to determine whether military courts gave fair consideration to petitioner's claims). <u>See also</u> <u>Lips v. If issues have been briefed and argued before the military tribunal. As to his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/024165np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allan's conviction and the INS's notice to appear Allan is a native of the West Bank of Israel. Allan was admitted to the United States on May 20. Allan was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of (1) criminal conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Alleging that he was subject to removal as an aggravated felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Allan conceded that he was an 2 aggravated felon under Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Maintained that he was entitled to (1) withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3)(A) and (2) withholding or deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. I believe that I will be subject to the violence of Israeli soldiers. It is more likely than not that the alien's life or freedom would be threatened on account of race. The alien must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-2134.htm">96-2134 -- GOWAN V. U.S DEPT. OF THE AIR FORCE -- 07/17/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-1468.htm">98-1468 -- HIRSCH V. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY -- 03/02/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1094.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zelle and Zelle & Larson were on brief for St. Were on brief for Ferrara & DiMercurio. The commercial fishing vessel F/V TWO FRIENDS was destroyed by fire on July 3. Was expressly excluded from policy coverage. Paul's refusal to pay was a breach of the insurance contract and constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for petitioner.<SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8A550ADC8E01D0C88256D9E007B7B0B/$file/0116791.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Uniform Code of Military Justice has criminalized sex between service members of the same gender and provided that such conduct is an offense punishable by court martial. 10 U.S.C. § 925. Which limits the basis under which a service member will be ordered separated from the armed services for violations of § 925. Don't Tell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-1237.htm">02-1237 -- ACKERMAN V. NOVAK -- 04/21/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is. He was sentenced to a reduction in rank. Ackerman asserted the following errors: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1248.htm">01-1248 -- MORRIS V. BURNETT -- 02/19/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/99-3220.htm">99-3220 -- PAALAN V. LANSING -- 09/13/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael P. 2441.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1167.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeks review of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241.(1) This is his second 2241 application in federal court. He was sentenced. The hair color of the identified suspect was different than his. There was no DNA evidence located and no attempt to match the evidence taken at the scene of the crime. 3) the victim was shown pictures of the assailant in November 1994 but he was not charged until March 1995. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Ackerman is a federal prisoner proceeding under 2241. He was unable to confront his accuser and counsel failed to object. He asserted: 1) his counsel was ineffective for failing to perform an adequate investigation. 2) his counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty. 3) his confession was involuntary because he was not read his Miranda rights until one week after he made his statement. 4) the government failed to provide evidence concerning the physical lineup and the lineup was conducted without counsel present. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972261.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2261 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted in Vermont of felony sex offenses against a minor in 1989. He was temporarily returned to the Marine Corps after trial. Roskiewich alleged that she was shopping in a local K Mart on the afternoon following Currier's escape. She was in a rear aisle of the store when Currier allegedly grabbed her from behind and sexually molested her. Currier fled but was captured by military authorities the next day. Roskiewich's complaint alleged that military authorities were negligent in allowing someone with Currier's history of sexual assault to 2 work on external work details. She further alleged that the military was negligent in supervising Currier on the day of his escape. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/02-3062.htm">02-3062 -- SMITH V. COMMANDANT U.S. DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS -- 11/14/2002<BR></A><BR> The federal courts have only limited authority to review court martial proceedings in actions for habeas corpus relief. <em>Lips v. An issue is deemed to have received full and fair consideration where it was brought before the military court and was disposed of by that court. This is adequate under <em>Watson</em> to meet the standard of full and fair consideration. <p> As to the legal standard applied to the instruction by the Army Court. This is adequate under <em>Watson</em> to meet the standard of full and fair consideration of this issue as well. <p> Because both issues presented here were given full and fair consideration by the military courts. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5409a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Steven H. With him on the brief were 2 Kenneth L. That he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-3118.htm">97-3118 -- STRACHAN V. TILLERY -- 10/21/1997<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was sentenced to six months confinement. The district court found that the military courts fully and fairly considered the point of error raised by Petitioner and denied habeas corpus relief. <p> Our review of a general court martial conviction is a limited one. <u>Burns v. We will generally deny a federal habeas corpus petition when a military decision has fully and fairly considered the claims asserted in the petition. <u>Lips v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/97-3118.wpd.html">STRACHAN V. TILLERY<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was sentenced to six months confinement. Our review of a general court martial conviction is a limited one. Burns v. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) Petitioner complains that the district court erred in not appointing counsel to assist him with his habeas petition. The district court found that Petitioner's claim raised no complex legal or factual questions and that Petitioner was able to articulate his claims. We will generally deny a federal habeas corpus petition when a military decision has fully and fairly considered the claims asserted in the petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3394.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 by Petitioner Appellant Charles W. Who is incarcerated at the United States Disciplinary Barracks in Ft. (1) This order is not binding precedent. Simpson was convicted of an indecent assault. He was sentenced to a reduction in his classification. Federal courts have very limited authority to review decisions made by the courts martial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-3389.htm">01-3389 -- CURRY V. LANSING -- 10/30/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael L. We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3293.html">JACLYNNE M. O'NEILL V. HUD<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Mark D. With him on the brief were <u>David . Because it is supported by other charges against Ms. Neill that the Board upheld and because those charges are sufficient under the circumstances to justify the penalty of removal.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5133.html">ROBERT W. CLARY, JR V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Robert E. Of counsel was <u>Lt. Jr. was illegally discharged from military service. Clary's record to show that he was retired under 10 U.S.C. § . Clary back pay and interest for the period between his separation and the time he was placed on retirement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Clary v. Clary was entitled to retire under 10 U.S.C. § . Clary interest for the period between his separation and the time he was placed on reti </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E6F58BB0C6C7B1788256E5A00707CF0/$file/9999024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted relief on Ainsworth's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Because we conclude that Ainsworth's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. We do not consider the additional issue raised in the State's appeal or those issues raised in Ainsworth's cross appeal as all four issues relate to the penalty phase trial and there is no indication those issues would arise again in a new penalty phase trial. Seng </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8132BD780664EE188256AD40078DAA2/$file/9999024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted relief on Ainsworth's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase. Because we conclude that Ainsworth's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. We do not consider the additional issue raised in the State's appeal or those issues raised in Ainsworth's cross appeal as all four issues relate to the penalty phase trial and there is no indication those issues would arise again in a new penalty phase trial. Seng </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Matthew S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Captain Thomas B. Of counsel was Lt. This case concerns a Navy officer who was involuntarily discharged following his second non selection for promotion. The trial court ruled on the administrative record that there was an unlawful delay in his promotion while certain misconduct was further evaluated by high Navy officials. I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are well summarized by the two thorough opinions below and will not be set forth in similar detail here. He rose through the ranks and was promoted to lieutenant on June 1. Barnes was selected by a board for promotion to lieutenant commander in the competitive category of special duty officer (cryptology) on April 30. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on November 8. Because he was later disciplined for attempting to arrange off duty liaisons with five enlisted women. Two of whom were his subordinates. A formal objection to his promotion was lodged by a lieutenant commander in the Performance Division of the Navy on February 19. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/052578U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Counsel in his Anders brief and Davis in a pro se supplemental brief argue the district court erred by assigning the disputed criminal history points because the sentences were misdemeanors and were not sufficiently long to warrant the assignment of 3 criminal history points. Counsel also argues the court should have applied the rule of lenity at sentencing. Davis contends he should have been sentenced for cocaine as opposed to crack. The district court properly calculated Davis's criminal history points because the four consecutive sentences were imposed in related cases. Id. cmt. n.3 (prior sentences resulting from offenses that were consolidated for trial and sentencing are related). The rule of lenity does not apply because Davis's sentence was not based on any ambiguous Guidelines provision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886)<BR></A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886)<BR></A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. I. BACKGROUND The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3331.html">KELLY BUTTERBAUGH V. DEPT OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James M. Acted permissibly in charging Petitioners' military leave allowance for days on which they were not scheduled to work. That federal employees need take military leave only for those days on which they are required to work. Line height:200%'>Petitioners are full time employees of the Depar </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1402.html">WILLIAM O. SCHISM V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3615F6674BD8D5288256E1C00053F59/$file/0272578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Procedural History Johnston Atoll is a United States possession. Located about 700 miles west southwest of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.1 It is only two miles long and one half mile wide. Gambling and fighting are prohibited. The hip injury is the subject of the instant claim. Which is one of several authorized social clubs on Johnston Atoll. OWCP 463 There are conflicting accounts of precisely what transpired at the AMVETS. It is undisputed that Ilaszczat fell and injured his hip there. None of the soldiers was interested. He described his second encounter with the soldiers as follows: [T]here was a couple of the military guys sitting at the bar and somehow the subject got around to martial arts. . . . [Burum] said he was really good at it and I said. [H]e was pretty insistent upon showing me how he could lift my [sic] leg over my head without touching me. . . . I went to the back of the room where the pool table and that picnic table [were] and I put my drink down on the picnic table and when he went to kick me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2053ORD.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit hereby certifies to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island</P> <P>certain questions of Rhode Island law which may be determinative of a cause pending in the Court of Appeals and as to which it appears to the Court of Appeals that there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Was then honorably discharged. He was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and. Was serving as a RIANG Public Affairs Officer. Was performing the duties of Education Officer for RIANG. As Major Wigginton was nearing completion of his twentieth year of aggregate (Marine and RIANG) military service. He was advised that. The principal stated purpose of National Guard Regulation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961522U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was subsequently charged under the Military Code of Justice with willful disobedience of a superior officer. Johnston was placed in pretrial confinement and met with his military On July 23. We review the Board's decision not to take corrective action only to determine whether its decisionmaking process was deficient. We note that Johnston admitted in his discharge request that it was voluntary and free of coercion. ¶ 10 2(a) provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4EE1DAEB1D688C258825730C004C0D4F/$file/0555126.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the Feres doctrine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Aaron Schoenfeld was a Lance Corporal in the United States Marine Corps stationed at Marine Corps Base. He was generally on duty from Monday to Friday and had weekends off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hamdi is being held according to the time honored laws and customs of war. There is nothing illegal about that. The question is essentially whether the United States can capture and detain prisoners of war without subjecting the factual circumstances surrounding foreign battlefield seizures to extensive in court review.1 The answer to this is now and always has been yes. I regret that my colleague does not even quote the provisions of Article I and Article II which delegate the conduct of war to the coordinate The government does not concede that Hamdi is a prisoner of war. Rather asserts that he is an unlawful combatant. The distinction is irrelevant because the decision to detain until the cessation of hostilities belongs to the executive in either case. The panel earlier expressed doubt that the timing of a cessation of hostilities was even justiciable. Is a question too fraught with gravity even to be adequately formulated when not compelled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001331.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a statesupported. The Citadel was forced to abandon its male only policy and began voluntarily admitting women to its Corps of Cadets in the fall of 1996. 345 (4th Cir. 1998).1 Appellant Jeannie Mentavlos was one of four women admitted to The Citadel that fall. She was assigned to Echo Company. With the exception of one cadet who was in default. She was subsequently allowed to amend her complaint to allege that the individual cadets were also state actors and elected to proceed solely on her § 1983 claim against them. The district court granted summary judgment on the alternative ground that Mentavlos failed to prove that his actions were discriminatory in nature. A damages hearing was still pending against him. 2 MENTAVLOS v. Are reviewed for clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-3336.htm">99-3336 -- BLESSING V. BOOKER -- 03/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Thomas Blessing appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-3290.htm">03-3290 -- GRAVES V. ANDRASCHKO -- 03/03/2004<BR></A><BR> Graves was convicted by a military court martial of attempted rape and premeditated murder. R. Doc. 26. <p> The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. <u>See generally</u> <u>United States v. (3) the general court martial was without jurisdiction because the military judge was not a member in good standing of a state bar. Rather was an inactive member. <p> Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/95-4016.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CUCH<BR></A><BR> The movants in these consolidated cases were both convicted in federal district court of federal crimes committed on land in eastern Utah that we had determined to be part of the Ute Indian Tribe's Uintah Reservation. The United States Supreme Court declared that the lands in question were not part of the Uintah Reservation. The issue is whether the Hagen decision both can and should be applied prospectively only with respect to convictions on collateral review. Utah).(1) The course of the litigation is as follows: In 1976. Challenges to federal jurisdiction during that time were dismissed or decided on the authority of Ute Indian Tribe. State v. (1) The details of the tribe's claims are extensively covered in the various opinions addressing the matter and need not be repeated here. Was collaterally estopped from relitigating the Reservation boundaries. The movants in the instant cases are Indians sentenced to federal prison for crimes committed in violation of federal law during the time the Ute Indian Tribe decisions were in effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-3140.htm">98-3140 -- SCHNEIDER V. TILLERY -- 03/19/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner David P. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8747A5B972AEE1F882572D8000203FF/$file/0456353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: For nearly ninety years it has been clearly established that aliens who seek exemption from compulsory military service the draft based on alienage will be forever barred from becoming United States citizens. We are asked to decide whether this bar to citizenship applies to an alien who voluntarily enlisted in the United States Navy. Was honorably discharged. While ground combat operations during Operation Desert Storm were underway in Kuwait and Iraq. Gallarde claims to have endured pain on a daily basis and to have begun experiencing numbness in his left leg. He was advised that such a request would be denied. Was advised that he could seek a discharge on the ground that he was an alien. Gallarde's commanding officer exercised the discretion given him by applicable regulations and denied Gallarde's request because the Navy was experiencing a shortage of sailors in Gallarde's occupational specialty. Indicating that he was requesting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5007.html">PORTER V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="126"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Zoll were on the joint brief. Circuit Judge: The Military Toxics Project seeks review of a final rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency establishing the circumstances in which military munitions are deemed hazardous waste for purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2616FE1237103A9788256A34005C085B/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3595E6C66D1FB5288256E5A00707AFB/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="124"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-3139.htm">99-3139 -- PRINGLE V. U.S. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> Appellant was on active duty in the United States Army. He was seriously injured while on the premises of Club Troopers. Club Troopers is operated by the United States out of non allocated funds as part of its Morale. Civilians as well as military personnel are allowed on the premises. Club Troopers employs military personnel as bartenders and bouncers. <p> Appellant alleges that while he was in Club Troopers on September 17. He was severely beaten by the gang members. A court is required to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 summary judgment motion when resolution of the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case. The jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case if subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on the same statute which provides the substantive claim in the case. <p> <u>Holt v. The district court determined that the jurisdictional question was not intertwined with the merits of the case. It was not intertwined with merits issues arising under the FTCA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4AE817FE6DB729C8825727C0057596A/$file/0630204.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Ross was administratively separated from the United States Army by summary court martial when he was caught trying to mail a submachine gun from Iraq to his father's home in Spokane. One of which Ross eventually bought for a confidential informant knowing that the informant was a convicted felon who could not lawfully possess a firearm. Maintained that he was not a member and had no contact with members. Acknowledged that being involved in white supremacist groups can lead to criminal activity and that Ross was UNITED STATES v. The district court was of the view that release should be conditioned on Ross's not being involved in organizations such as the National Alliance and Aryan Nations and other white supremacy groups. The discretion is broad. Conditions cannot involve any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044DE357BD726D7288256DF10063BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are legal and social service organizations and two individuals who seek to provide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant pled nolo contendere in Florida state court to second degree murder and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. Appellant was extradited to Florida to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Concluding Appellant was procedurally barred from relitigating issues that had already been raised in his mandamus petition and denying Appellant's remaining claims on the merits. Since he alleges he is in custody pursuant to a state judgment in violation of his constitutional rights. His appropriate avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3206.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Hurn appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition that alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to raise a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Hurn was examined by a competency board and found that he was unfit to stand trial but that he was expected to be competent to stand trial after two or three months' medical treatment. Hurn was then arraigned on February 21. Hurn was convicted by general court martial of rape. Was sentenced to confinement for life. Hurn is currently an inmate in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. It was in these proceedings that Mr. Claiming that the delay between his pretrial confinement and his arraignment constituted a violation of his speedy trial rights and that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to inform Mr. Hurn alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the trial counsel's work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024267.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FORESMAN Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was a piece of PVC pipe that housed a military silencer belonging to the Navy. Foresman was permitted to testify that she received a call from Foresman and that he instructed her to hide an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3208.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. His sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on an invalidated sentencing factor. Sherrill's argument and also that the same issue was considered and denied in the original habeas proceeding.(2) R. Sherrill does not argue that this ruling was in error. <hr> DISCUSSION </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/06-5126a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Susan L. Circuit Judge: In this case we have before us a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Shawqi Ahmad Omar. He traveled to Iraq seeking reconstruction related work and would have left by November 2004 but for his arrest and detention. The government believes that Omar was part of Zarqawi's network and that he facilitated terrorist activities both in and outside of Iraq. The government alleges that four Jordanian foreign fighters and an Iraqi insurgent were captured along with Omar. That weapons and improvised explosive device making materials were found in his home. The panel also found that Omar was not a prisoner of war for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention. American MNF I officials have held Omar at various detention facilities in Iraq. The record indicates neither who made this decision nor what procedures were followed. The government also argues that even if the district court does have jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/954181P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The policy was adopted to implement a 1993 statute. Richenberg claims that the policy violates his due process and free speech rights and is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. Like two other circuits that have recently considered similar challenges. The Secretary of Defense published a new policy At the core of that policy was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0349p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to reinstate the plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint against the United States. That complaint was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the facts in this case are readily distinguishable from those in Irvin and do not implicate the rationales underlying the decision in Feres. We conclude that the district court does have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's complaint. There can be no doubt that he was fully sympathetic to the Brown family. Who was born with spina bifida. While Deborah was on active duty with the United States Navy. Which the plaintiff alleges is intended solely to prevent neural tube defects in a developing fetus. Later alleged in the complaint that prenatal doses of folic acid offer no scientific benefits to an expectant mother but are prescribed to ensure that there is adequate folic acid for the baby from the moment of conception onward. She indicated on a medical history form that she and her husband were trying to conceive and that she was currently taking prenatal vitamins. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972234.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were born after the War. The district court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Judge Advocate General and that exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Our decision nonetheless invites Congress to review these claims in the context of ongoing scientific studies to assure that justice is accomplished for our returning veterans and their families. Army are veterans of the Persian Gulf War which was fought in 1991. They were inoculated with drugs and exposed to pesticides by the military in anticipation of possible biological and chemical attacks by Iraq. Each serviceman returned to his wife and fathered a child who was born with serious birth defects. The families of these children recognize that scientific studies about the effects of the administered drugs and pesticides are in process and will not be concluded until later in 1998 or in 1999. They believe that the toxins to which the servicemen were exposed were possibly stored in the servicemen's semen and passed on to their wives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5098.html">EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Timothy J. Ambrose</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'><span style='mso bidi font size: 12.0pt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062051p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Be ordered to perform training or other duty in addition to that prescribed under subsection (a) [required drills and field training.] 3 National Guard of the United States intervened and the case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The issue before us is whether the Feres doctrine of intramilitary immunity bars a suit raising state law claims for damages for injuries arising from. We hold that it does and will affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's grant of summary judgment and employ the same analysis required of the District Court to determine whether there are any issues of material fact that would enable the nonmoving party to prevail. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027338.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court certified for appeal the question of whether a declaration by a Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy setting forth what the government contends were the circumstances of Hamdi's capture was sufficient by itself to justify his detention. Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict. We hold that the submitted declaration is a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the Commander in Chief has constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted to him by the United States Constitution. No further factual inquiry is necessary or proper. Was foiled by the efforts of the passengers and crew on the highjacked airliner when it crashed in Somerset County. 000 people were killed on American soil that day. Have been captured by American and allied forces. Hamdi apparently was born in Louisiana but left for Saudi Arabia when he was a small child. Hamdi was transferred to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig after it was discovered that he may not have renounced his American citizenship. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-13616.man.html">SPEIGNER V. ALEXANDER (4/24/2001, NO. 00-13616)<BR></A><BR> Was removed from the Alabama Guard after 25 years of service. Because he was an officer with at least 20 years of service. Speigner was subject to annual review by the Selective Retention Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="117"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-13616.man.html">SPEIGNER V. ALEXANDER (4/24/2001, NO. 00-13616)<BR></A><BR> Was removed from the Alabama Guard after 25 years of service. Because he was an officer with at least 20 years of service. Speigner was subject to annual review by the Selective Retention Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/042979P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Maxfield argues that the district court erred in holding that (1) he failed to present evidence to show that Cintas's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for adverse employment actions were pretexts for race discrimination under the third step of the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. (2) he failed under USERRA to present evidence to show that his military service was a motivating factor in Cintas's actions. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom are as follows. A draw was essentially a salary that was advanced on expected sales. If commissions on sales were less than the draw. Before he was able to reduce it to $1. Who was responsible for preparing Maxfield's orders. Asking whether Maxfield had reported for duty and whether it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5082.html">FUSHER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>David M. Kinsella</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Captain Andrew M. Virginia.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act?<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Second. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action. Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there issues that. Are nonjusticiable?<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoHeader style='text indent:.5in. Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty. He should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. 1201 should have been retired for disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1534.html">PACRIM PIZZA COMPANY V. ROBERT PIRIE<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013616.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was removed from the Alabama Guard after 25 years of service. Because he was an officer with at least 20 years of service. Speigner was subject to annual review by the Selective Retention Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013616.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was removed from the Alabama Guard after 25 years of service. Because he was an officer with at least 20 years of service. Speigner was subject to annual review by the Selective Retention Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1141a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5348a.html">MARY LOUISE CUMMINGS V. DEPT. OF NAVY<BR></A><BR> Wishod were on brief. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-5348a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wishod were on brief. Spitzer were on brief for amici curiae The American Legion. Acting United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. The unauthorized release of her training record to a civilian author was not incident to service under Feres's case specific inquiry and that her suit against the Navy. Is not barred. Whether members of the armed forces may sue the mili tary for damages under the Privacy Act is a question of first impression. Completed flight training and became a Naval aviator.1 She was assigned to a flight squadron at the Naval Air Station. To observe Hornet training so that he could research a book he was writing about the training of fighter pilots. The book was based primarily upon Gandt's observations of the Hornet training program and upon Navy supplied information. That as a result of the book's publication </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5116.html">ROTH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Roth was given mandatory retirement f </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="112"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Town Counsel for the Town of Wellesley were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031474.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Military officers are exempt from antidiscrimination laws. Every federal appellate court to do so has concluded that uniformed members of the military are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2213.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Castro Amy was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Were called to active duty in the Persian Gulf War. They were employed full time in a National Guard program to assist in drug interdiction. The plaintiffs' assignment to this program was terminated by the Puerto Rico National Guard. The basic facts are not in dispute. Is a hybrid organization. National Guards are ordinarily under the control of state (or. Are organized pursuant to federal statute. There are exceptions. Each of the plaintiffs in this case is a Puerto Rico National Guard member who was assigned to work full time in 1989 to 1990 in this phase of the counter drug program. Each plaintiff worked under orders couched in the following terms: You are ordered to Active Duty special work (ADSW) for the period indicated plus 3 3 allowable travel time. Upon completion of the period of ADSW unless sooner relieved or extended by proper authority you will return to the place where you entered ADSW and are relieved from such duty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062626P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that Cintas's second motion for summary judgment presented the same legal issue that we resolved in our first decision on an evidentiary record that is not substantially different from the record that we considered originally. The law of the case dictates that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied. I. The facts of the case are set forth at length in our opinion in Maxfield I. He was hired by Cintas in July 1999 as a service sales representative. We further held that Maxfield presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that his military status was a motivating factor in Cintas's decision to transfer him. That the burden of proof shifted to Cintas to show that it would have taken the same action absent Maxfield's military status. There was still a genuine issue of fact whether Maxfield's reserve status was a motivating factor in the transfer. We held Maxfield satisfied his initial burden to show a genuine issue of material fact that his military status was a motivating factor in Cintas's decision to terminate him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1245a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1FA6F097280A4A888256EB30054D497/$file/0274068.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her rural village in Guatemala was pillaged by both the guerillas and the military. Garcia's eventual rape was inextricably tied to the village's affiliation. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="109"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3065.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Pelinkovics are Muslims and ethnic Albanians from the city of Bar in Montenegro. It was this civil war with Croatia from which the Pelinkovics fled. The immigration judge hearing the Pelinkovics' case determined that Rizaja's fear of forced military service or punishment for failure to perform such service was unsupported. FRY citizens avoiding compulsory military service were not pursued. Noting that the generally poor country con No. 02 3065 3 ditions cited by the Pelinkovics affected the entire population and that there was not enough evidence in the record to support granting them asylum based solely on their religious and ethnic minority status. Was based on changed country conditions in the FRY. Milosevic was still in power and had begun military action in Kosovo (a province within Serbia). Which was struggling for independence. The majority of Kosovars were Muslim and of ethnic Albanian descent. Was critical of Milosevic's policies toward Kosovo and his brutal police and military campaign aimed at the ethnic Albanian separatists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="109"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1245a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Specifies that persons are employed as technicians </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="109"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3451_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal presents another variation on the question whether taxpayers have standing to challenge a governmental action that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause an issue that arises with some regularity. Each of these cases addresses challenging issues in an area of law in which the law is by no means clear. The taxpayers' target is a federal statute. Plaintiff Eugene Winkler and others (to whom we refer collectively as Winkler) sued the Secretary of Defense claiming that the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause because it requires the government to support an organization BSA that conditions membership upon a belief in God and thus that excludes believers in religions that are not based on one or more Deities. The district court ruled that standing was proper. It then found that BSA is a religious organization and that the direct public subsidy of the Jamborees violated the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Winkler does not have standing to challenge the Jamboree statute. There are three elements of Article III standing: injury in fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/02-5251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8EDAEA22DFBF288882572970081C896/$file/0515025.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this case is whether the Feres doctrine. Which prohibits suit against the government for injuries that are incident to military service. McConnell's use of the boat was a benefit of his status as a service member and that the alleged negligence was subject to military orders and regulations compel us to affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the government. Matthew Crowell were F 16 student pilots in the United States Air Force ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="107"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1436.html">JAMES V. CALDERA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052672np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We will deny the petition for review. Petitioner was born on August 24. Is married and has several children. He was convicted of a federal narcotics violation in 1996 and was sentenced in the U.S. Petitioner was convicted for a narcotics violation in state court in Pennsylvania and received a sentence of 36 to 72 months incarceration. The petitioner's testimony before the IJ in 2004 indicated that he was from a well established family in the Dominican Republic. Colonel Perez. 2 Petitioner testified that he was called to present evidence at a televised court martial of Colonel Perez. His relatives in the Dominican Republic have notified him that various unnamed individuals had inquired about his whereabouts and threatened to physically harm him. Contending that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to the Dominican Republic. Petitioner testified that Colonel Perez was living in the Dominican Republic. Although he was no longer a government official. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40252.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Copeland was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for speeding. The officer asked Copeland if there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle. Copeland replied that there was a gun in the trunk. Copeland was indicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Copeland argued that the traffic stop and detention were made without probable cause and 2 without a search warrant. Copeland was convicted. Found that his criminal history category was II. Investigatory stops are justifiable. If the officer has an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The car in which Copeland was a passenger was stopped for speeding. It was also reasonable for the officer to briefly detain Copeland after issuing a warning to the driver of the car. The officer was justified in investigating further. The district court was correct in denying Copeland's motion to suppress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0146p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) his jury was selected in a manner at odds with his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because of the disproportionate chance that the petit jury would lack residents of his congressional district. The convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. A superseding indictment was returned on October 26. Was chosen according to that court's Jury Selection Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/031231U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B977B0A14196866D882571610079DEE5/$file/0516391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jonah R. spent almost 35 months in detention before he was sentenced to a 30 month term of confinement under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun24/03-40252.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Copeland was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for speeding. The officer asked Copeland if there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle. Copeland replied that there was a gun in the trunk. Copeland was indicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Copeland argued that the traffic stop and detention were made without probable cause and 2 without a search warrant. Copeland was convicted. Found that his criminal history category was II. Investigatory stops are justifiable. If the officer has an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The car in which Copeland was a passenger was stopped for speeding. It was also reasonable for the officer to briefly detain Copeland after issuing a warning to the driver of the car. The officer was justified in investigating further. The district court was correct in denying Copeland's motion to suppress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/982445P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is serving a twenty five to fifty year sentence on his conviction in a Nebraska state court on a charge of first degree sexual assault. I. The facts of this case are set out more fully in Newman I. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in holding that offering the voice exemplar would have waived Newman's Fifth Amendment rights. Because an accent was easily manipulated by a speaker and because the conditions under which the victim heard her attacker's voice could not be replicated. Was so unreliable as to be inadmissible under Nebraska's evidentiary rules. We concluded that the Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling was in effect a per se exclusion of voice exemplar evidence that infringed on Newman's right to present his defense and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to grant the habeas petition and order that Newman be released or be given a new trial. 2 II. The sole question before us on remand is whether. The Court announced the more elaborate Williams standard: A state prisoner may obtain federal habeas relief with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court only through a showing that the state court's decision was either (1) contrary to. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0438n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that these statutes are unconstitutional as applied to him because they (1) violate his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a member of the Tennessee State Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6236.htm">98-6236 -- PAXTON V. WARD -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Kenneth Wayne Paxton was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Determined that the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally flawed by the exclusion of mitigating evidence. Paxton argues that he was improperly denied an instruction on a lesser included offense. That evidence of an invalid prior conviction was improperly admitted during the sentencing phase of his trial to support two of the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-3233.htm">03-3233 -- RIOS V. COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS -- 04/01/2004<BR></A><BR> Rios was convicted by general court martial of the following offenses: (1) rape of a child under the age of sixteen. He was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment. <p> When Mr. Rios was charged and convicted of four additional offenses. Rios also alleges that (4) prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying him outdoor exercise and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014026.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Incorporated (All Ports) were convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles on the United States Munitions List (Munitions List) without a license and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Bing Sun was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="105"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1037.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have been perpetrated by both the armed insurgents and the government's security forces. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="105"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shrair P.C. were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. The district court ruled that the claims were barred by the doctrine of Feres v. Because the complaint was resolved on motions to dismiss. The facts are set forth as alleged in the complaint and inferences are taken in the light most favorable to the non moving party. That party is the plaintiff in the district court. Who at the time of the alleged incident was an enlisted airman of the Massachusetts Air National Guard. Day was serving with the 104th Fighter Group and was assigned to participate in a training exercise at Volk Field in Wisconsin. Day also says that he was warned by several men. Whether Day would be attacked and was assured he would not be attacked that night. During the night Day was awakened by several individuals. These including serviceman (and later defendant) James Towle and others whom Day was unable to identify (but are listed in the complaint as John Does 1 through 8). Was that he was the one who broke up the attack. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1263.html">SEBASTAIN ELEANOR V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Barbara C. Of counsel on the brief was Lt. We affirm.<p> <p> I<p> The appellants are retired career members of the military service. 000 for each individual plaintiff. <p> The complaint alleged that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08DCA40B5268F1E188256B52006025B3/$file/0055117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was. The Judge Advocate 1 This factual background is based on the complaint. Because the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Non Liturgical/Other denominations were each guaranteed one third of the chaplain corps positions. Liturgical chaplains are. A declaration that his involuntary early retirement was invalid and violative of due process. The court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. 000 were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The district court concluded that they were barred by the Feres doctrine. Whether the Feres doctrine applies to the facts in the record is reviewed de novo. The district court's underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Its application of substantive law is reviewed de novo. Which were well in excess of $10. The district court also reasoned that Wilkins's tort claims were barred by the Feres doctrine. Although the United States is generally liable for tort damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CB220513C76DEEF882571A9007D3CA7/$file/0473295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zehatye's Arrival in the United States Zehatye is a native and citizen of Eritrea. Explaining that she was a Jehovah's Witness and feared being </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/972466P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in holding that her claim is non justiciable For the reasons discussed under the Feres2 doctrine. below. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Background Plaintiff is a female Master Sergeant in the Iowa National Guard. Plaintiff was serving as the Detachment Sergeant for the 1088th Personnel Services Company which is also located at Camp Dodge. The Detachment Sergeant position is a National Guard position which requires the traditional reserve service commitment 2 Feres v. 340 U.S. 135 (1950) (holding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 02 1267 ORDER Before the Court is the appellant's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Panel rehearing is hereby denied. Rehearing en banc is also hereby denied. Which are filed herewith. This Order is entered for the Court at the direction of Judge King. Any disagreement I have with them is in matters of inconsequential detail. I. I am struck with the reliance by the panel on what it obviously believes is some kind of impure motivation on the part of VMI. Although stating that it agreed with the conclusion of the district court that part of VMI's educational mission in the eyes of General Bunting is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FA9E13E3F5E6E0288256D470071D0B2/$file/0036043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fletcher and Berzon have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing but to make one minor change. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied except that the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7DCF9F99320811E88256D110081637C/$file/0036043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McEuin was injured while operating a forklift manufactured by Crown. McEuin claimed that the forklift was defectively designed because the 5286 MCEUIN v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP. operator cabin was not enclosed with a door and because Crown did not provide an adequate warning concerning the risks associated with the forklift. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 30RC is operated from a standing position. The 30RC does not have a door enclosing the operator cabin as a standard feature. McEuin's injury occurred while he was operating the 30RC Price Co. and Costco merged and became Price Costco in 1993. The merger was announced on June 17. 1993 and was completed on October 22. His foot was crushed as the rear of the forklift collided with a steel post. Alleging that Crown is strictly liable for designing. Selling the 30RC in an unreasonably dangerous condition because (1) it failed to supply a door that would have reduced or eliminated the risk of injury to the operator's left leg. (2) the 30RC was sold without adequate warnings of the severity of the risk of serious injury to the operator's left leg caused by the lack of a door. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="103"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/971864P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Brown's injury was sustained incident to military service. Dismissal was appropriate. Brown was a cadet in the United States Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at the University of Missouri Columbia. Brown also was enrolled in the United States Army's Senior ROTC advanced training program. Brown was required to enlist in a reserve component of the armed forces. If for any reason he was disenrolled from the ROTC. Brown again complained of excused with instructions to report to a nearby civilian hospital have it examined. Brown applied for and has been awarded benefits under § 1131 because the Secretary found that Brown is a veteran and has suffered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="102"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/429E2096892C3D8388256E00005FEB65/$file/0355785final.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="102"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5058.html">STEPHEN W. RICHEY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Robert D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Major Joseph C. Alleging that he was denied promotion due to two erroneous Officer Evaluation Reports ( OERs ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The court ordered the reinstatement to active duty of Richey. Cl. 2001) ( <u>Richey II</u> ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that the Court of Federal Claims was without authority to require the Corrections Board to make such findings. That Richey has not shown that the SSB decisions were arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We accordingly reverse. During which time Richey was a Squadron Maintenance Officer stationed at Fort Bliss. Stated in the 1989 OER that Richey was just not the man for the job and it showed.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>He would be better utilized in a concepts and doctrinal line of work where his intellect could be better utilized. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Id.</u> at 5 6 (citation omitted).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The second OER covered the period from January 29. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="102"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0996n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of Algeria. The Immigration Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="102"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E19D5FA5D1D35B088256E0600015A55/$file/0355785.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/150223fa6234604188256c33005b696e/$FILE/0015652.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rumsfeld is substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that the Act is unconstitutionally vague. We must decide whether the Act's ban on sexually explicit materials is government speech. Because we believe it is not. Applied First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that military exchanges are nonpublic fora and that the Act is a viewpoint neutral. A theme of any material that is superior in power. Any such material it deems sexually explicit is withdrawn from military retail outlets. Exchanges are open only to members of the military and to those explicitly authorized under DOD Directive 1330.9 § E2.2. Applying traditional First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that exchanges were nonpublic fora. That the Act was a reasonable. Is unconstitutionally vague. Arguing that almost all adult materials specifically </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3319.html">ALLEN V. USPS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-1365.htm">01-1365 -- SHEALY V. SHEALY -- 07/08/2002<BR></A><BR> Where the parties are engaged in a custody dispute over Sierra. Shealy's removal of Sierra was not wrongful. Shealy are United States citizens who were married in the United States. Was born in the United States on May 22. Was assigned to a three year tour in Germany. The family court ordered that an opinion be obtained from a court appointed social worker in an effort to determine which parent should have custody. Shealy and Sierra were scheduled to meet with a social worker for an interview the following month. The court's holding was based on its view that unilateral removal of the child was not necessary for military reasons as required by its prior order. Holding that the transfer <em>was </em>necessary for military reasons. <p> It is true that she moved the child to the United States somewhat earlier than <em>absolutely</em> necessary. Since she will have to be in the United States anyway for military reasons as of the end of July 2001. <p> <em>Id.</em> at 480 81 (emphasis added). Although Sierra is no longer in Germany. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5007.html">AIR LAND FORWARDERS, INC. V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 98-5007)<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Stanley I. With him on the brief were <u>David M. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p> The appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/150223FA6234604188256C33005B696E/$file/0015652.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rumsfeld is substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that the Act is unconstitutionally vague. We must decide whether the Act's ban on sexually explicit materials is government speech. Because we believe it is not. Applied First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that military exchanges are nonpublic fora and that the Act is a viewpoint neutral. A theme of any material that is superior in power. Any such material it deems sexually explicit is withdrawn from military retail outlets. Exchanges are open only to members of the military and to those explicitly authorized under DOD Directive 1330.9 § E2.2. Applying traditional First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that exchanges were nonpublic fora. That the Act was a reasonable. Is unconstitutionally vague. Arguing that almost all adult materials specifically </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-1132.wpd.html">BURKINS V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> 1970.(2) Burkins claims that he should have received a disability discharge in 1970 because he suffered from 100% disabling post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which he incurred while serving in Vietnam. The district court concluded that Burkins was entitled to such a disability discharge and (1) The terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5151.html">ISHIDA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="100"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58EA134FB6BA34A988256F2600543DAA/$file/9956498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That decision is the subject of the appeal in case No. 99 56498. MOD moved the district court for a determination that its judgment against Cubic was immune from attachment. JURISDICTION The denial of a motion to intervene as of right is an appealable final order. District court orders entered after the entry of judgment are generally reviewable by a separate appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The judgment against the Iranian defendants was for Flatow sued under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5125.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Kesler T. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because the Claims Court erred in determining that Jentoft was not a federal civilian employee for purposes of the Equal Pay Act. BACKGROUND As we have previously recognized. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5404a.html">AMER LEGION V. DERWINSKI EDWARD J.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Louis R. Graham J. 3 Jenkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Global Rights in support of appellants in Nos. 05 5062. With him on the briefs were Barbara J. Land were on the brief of amicus curiae Omar Deghayes in support of the detainees. Morton Sklar was on the brief of amicus curiae The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees. David Overlock Stewart was on the brief of amici curiae Legal and Historical Scholars in support of the detainees. Hafetz was on the brief of amici curiae British and American Habeas Scholars in support of the detainees. Were on 4 the brief for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender Habeas Corpus Counsel in support of the detainees. Meister were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the detainees. With him on the briefs were Paul D. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of the United States of America. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/515D379334A1E95688256B7200622516/$file/0056696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wenger was a guest speaker at a Guard social event known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57482E7FE94F81EF882571D500008129/$file/0356552.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wallace also appeals the district court's finding that the jury verdict </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was executed by Chilean military officers following a coup d'état. A Chilean military officer who was alleged to have participated in his execution. The lawsuit was filed pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). Fernandez appeals contending: (1) that the Cabello survivors' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (3) that he did not have any command responsibility and did not personally participate in the alleged human rights violations. He is not liable under the TVPA or the ATCA. President Allende was ousted in a coup d'état by Chilean military officers led by General Augusto Pinochet who began operating a military junta. Cabello was arrested and incarcerated in the Copiapó jail. He was transferred to the Copiapó military garrison. Abuse of various individuals who were incarcerated due to their alleged opposition to the military junta. Cabello refused to leave the truck and was stabbed to death by Fernández who slashed Cabello with a corvo. Curved knife that is designed to inflict fatal wounds while causing a prolonged and painful death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD176D8CE250F6AF88257280005655D4/$file/0356552.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER We have before us petitions for rehearing from both Appellee the City of San Diego and Appellant Wallace. The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Is amended to replace all of the text within part V of the opinion (slip op. at 10194. Wallace failed to articulate the issue for which he was seeking judgment. The issue is not properly before us on appeal. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. Wallace also appeals the district court's finding that the jury verdict </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4826E273F5FC6C9D88256B9D0079FE97/$file/0056696.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is amended as follows: Slip Op. at 3442: In the penultimate sentence of Section I of the opinion. Wenger was . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="98"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5040.html">PONDER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411463.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was admitted to the United States in September of 1990 as a non immigrant visitor for pleasure. Alim was arrested for assaulting Lora. Adjudication was withheld. Alim was sentenced to nine months' probation. Alim were interviewed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in January of 1999. Alim was indicted in federal court for making false statements at his INS interview. Alim was convicted on the federal false statements charge on April 12. Alleging that he was also subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien convicted after admission to the U.S. of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (i.e. Alim also explained that he was planning on filing an application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Had yet to do so because Elizabeth's visa petition was pending. Alim was approved. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8873.opa.html">RILEY V. NEWTON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Riley v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Ralph Lowe was accidentally shot and killed while being arrested by Patrick Newton. Who was accompanying Richmond County Inspector Kenneth Glisson on patrol. Claims against the United States and other participants in the events that led to Lowe's death have been resolved and are not before us.<p> The section 1983 claims allege that Lowe was seized without probable cause and subjected to excessive force in violation of the First. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3388.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul M. Because the board erred by declining to order the government to correct his personnel records for the days he was improperly charged military leave in violation of Butterbaugh v. Federal government employees who are members of the National Guard are entitled to 15 days of annual military leave </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2005.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellees. Was hired by defendant appellee RWA in August 1980. During the next few years he was promoted and transferred several times before attaining the classification of Personnel Relations Counselor. Where for one month he was assigned to a cubicle filled with boxes and office supplies but no desk or chair. Diaz was reprimanded unjustly by his supervisors on two occasions upon his return from military leave. He explained his four hour absence on that occasion as having been devoted to making sure the RWA paid him for the time he was on military leave. When asked on deposition whether it was a joke. Diaz replied: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8873.opa.html">RILEY V. NEWTON<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Riley v. Senior District Judge:<p> <p> Ralph Lowe was accidentally shot and killed while being arrested by Patrick Newton. Who was accompanying Richmond County Inspector Kenneth Glisson on patrol. Claims against the United States and other participants in the events that led to Lowe's death have been resolved and are not before us.<p> The section 1983 claims allege that Lowe was seized without probable cause and subjected to excessive force in violation of the First. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI0NTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2450-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The claim charged violations of USERRA and the New York Military Law and was dismissed by the District Court on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. BACKGROUND Morris Hayes was hired by the Board as an Elementary School Principal in the Chester Union Free School District. The Board was aware that Morris Hayes held a commission as a Major in the United States Army Reserve and. Was subject to calls to military training and active duty. Morris Hayes was unable to perform her duties as Elementary School Principal. Defendant Canzoneri told her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3414.html">WILLIAM E. WOODMAN V. OPM<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B954820EA814C07C88256A170061DBFC/$file/9970588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) finding that Espinoza was deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) because (1) he was excludable at entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(22) for having remained outside the United States to avoid or evade military service during a period of national emergency. (2) he was not covered by a presidential pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act. Counsel conceded that petitioner was not covered by the presidential pardon. The only question remaining is whether substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Espinoza was excludable at entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(22). Espinoza argues that he was not 3564 excludable because he did not leave the United States primarily to avoid or evade service in the armed forces but rather because he needed to support his family. He argues that he was not excludable because no national emergency existed when he deserted the Army. Is approximately sixty three years old. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EC5B5C5C25E8CD888256E5A00707AA8/$file/9970588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ's) finding that Espinoza was deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) because (1) he was excludable at entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(22) for having remained outside the United States to avoid or evade military service during a period of national emergency. (2) he was not covered by a presidential pardon for violations of the Selective Service Act. Counsel conceded that petitioner was not covered by the presidential pardon. The only question remaining is whether substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Espinoza was excludable at entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(22). Espinoza argues that he was not 3564 excludable because he did not leave the United States primarily to avoid or evade service in the armed forces but rather because he needed to support his family. He argues that he was not excludable because no national emergency existed when he deserted the Army. Is approximately sixty three years old. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="97"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414382.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is some confusion over whether Coffman's position as manager was exempt from Del Jen's collective bargaining agreement as a non union position. Testified that Gunn did not have 2 the authority to make Coffman's position exempt from the collective bargaining agreement by adding duties and pay. Del Jen discovered the mistake over Coffman's promotion while Coffman was away on active duty. This particular dispute over Coffman's position is ultimately immaterial. While Coffman was still away on active duty. The services that Chugach provided at Tyndall were similar to those services Del Jen had provided. For the portion of the project that was not subcontracted out. The interview was not for a specific position. Coffman testified that he thought this interview was merely a courtesy meeting. The parties discussed an available position that was similar to Coffman's previous position with Del Jen. Different in that the Chugach position was a nonmanagement union position. Coffman testified that he made it clear during the interview that he was willing to talk with Chugach and work something out regarding the discrepancies between the available position and his former position. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1816.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DaimlerChrysler timely filed this appeal and raised the following issues: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of progressive encroachment to its dilution claim by finding that laches barred the claim even though prior sales of H1 vehicles occurred in a different market than the mainstream SUV market where the H2 is 1 (...continued) the early 1980s and was later released for consumer sales in 1992 as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3233.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Is entitled to credit for active military service performed after 1956 under both the CSRS and the Social Security System. Meek had served in the military after 1956 and was eligible for a civil service annuity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051746p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will grant the petition. 2 I. A. The current situation in Cote d'Ivoire was born from the increasingly divisive politics that arose following the death of its first president. Houphouet Boigny was from the southern part of Cote d'Ivoire. Which is religiously. The population of the South is predominantly Christian and animist. Is comprised of various ethnic groups. French is the primary language. The northern part of the country is predominantly Muslim in religion and Dioula and Senoufo in ethnicity. Dioula is the primary language. They seized upon the perception that northern Ivoirians have closer ethnic. Was one of several opposition parties that emerged to rally against the discrimination against northerners. Was stopped from standing in the presidential elections after doubts were raised about his nationality. Which was perceived as another instance of discrimination and human rights abuses against northerners. There was widespread suspicion. That the RDR was instrumental in the coup. Numerous human rights violations are alleged to have been committed in the suppression of the riots and rebellion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/110D1540C1A77EC888256E6D00592718/$file/9917551o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition is therefore denied. The stay of the issuance of the mandate is vacated. No liberties are safe if courts can so easily erase them. No lover of liberty can be confident that an important right will never become so disfavored in popular or elite opinion as to be vulnerable to being discarded like the Second Amendment. KING 4167 I have spelled out in great detail why our court's view of the Second Amendment is indefensible. I will not restate them here. Our court takes what to me is a position verging on droll legal humor. That the right is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D7CACD97C39BD47288256ED20074ABCF/$file/0274059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Denied relief on the grounds that he had not suffered past persecution and did not have a well founded fear of future persecution. Khup contends that the record compels a finding that he suffered past persecution and that he more likely than not will be tortured if he is returned to Burma. BACKGROUND Khup alleges that he was persecuted by the Burmese military on account of his religious activities and an imputed political opinion. The following facts are drawn from Khup's testimony at his hearing before the IJ and from Khup's asylum declaration. Khup is a Seventh Day Adventist ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="95"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3768.html">CLARK V. OPM<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0107p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 BACKGROUND This Tennessee breach of contract suit was previously before this Court. The overall goal of the TRICARE program is to improve the quality. One aspect of the new TRICARE program was the establishment of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021915P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action by Linda and Reginald Johnson against Aaron Crooks. Because she is an African American. We consider whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063119P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clegg was working in the Tucker maximum security unit as a Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) coordinator. Clegg was classified as a Grade 20 employee. Clegg was activated for military duty in Iraq as part of her service in the Army National Guard. The first was that state certification requirements had changed while she was on leave and that in order to remain qualified for her job and to continue to be employed by the ADOC. Clegg that they were considering assigning her to the Therapeutic Community (TC) counseling unit at Tucker. Clegg was notified by ADOC on August 27. Clegg in the SATP unit upon her return were Cedric Albritton. Clegg's duties when she was on military leave. Clegg's immediate supervisor was Kerry Bakken. She alleged that during that time she was subjected to retaliation by being denied items she required for work and that she was discriminated against because she was not given her same position or rate of pay upon her return. A second EEOC complaint was filed by Ms. In which she alleged various types of retaliatory behavior were directed toward her after she filed the first EEOC complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/951962P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Albert Burnham and Ronald Marchese. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ianni's actions were unconstitutional. I. Background The underlying facts of this case are generally not in dispute. at 397. Which are at the The Kohns center of this dispute. Were originally part of a visual exhibit conceived of and created by the Kohns while they were students at UMD. faculty advisor. convey to were both members of the UMD history club. For which Burnham was the The Kohns' objective in displaying the exhibit was to the history faculty's diverse interests. The photographs were then juxtaposed with written descriptions of the subject's academic background. Approximately one year before the photographs of Burnham and Marchese were removed from the display case. Sandra Featherman was appointed to the post of UMD vice chancellor. Was circulated through the UMD system and distributed on and around campus. memorandum referred to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05870C709ECC1EC88256EF40081A34C/$file/0235965.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity from an Idaho state tax on motor fuel delivered by non tribal distributors to tribally owned gas stations for sale on Indian reservations. The state is barred from re litigating the matter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Substantially all proceeds from the state motor fuel tax are used for highway construction and maintenance. When such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. (b) The officer in charge of such reservation shall. Or the District of Columbia within whose borders the reservation is located. Showing the amount of such motor fuel with respect to which taxes are payable under subsection (a) for the preceding month. 4 U.S.C. § 104 (emphasis added). The amended law declared that the legal incidence of the tax was not on the retailer. Was on the distributor. 2002 Idaho Sess. To expressly impose the legal incidence of motor fuels taxes upon the motor fuel distributor who receives (as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034583p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was charged with removability for being present in the United States without admission or parole. Jishiashvili presented a significant amount of evidence supporting internally consistent testimony that was also generally consistent with his asylum application. The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-2089.htm">02-2089 -- NISH V. RUMSFELD -- 11/14/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs are non profit agencies representing the blind and severely handicapped. Have preferred status in the provision of goods and services to the federal government. The mess hall contract was then awarded to NMCB. Plaintiffs contend that (1) the interpretation of the RS Act by the Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to deference. (2) the RS Act does not apply here because the KAFB mess hall is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3290.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Because the Board's decision is both arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence. When he asked how much the deposit will cost. He was told by a government counselor that it would cost </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-5075a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5214a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were H. On the brief were David W. Filed suit prior to termination of that conflict seeking a declaratory judgment that the President's use of American forces against Yugoslavia was unlawful un der both the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5106.html">DYSART V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Gregory R. Mso bidi font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Edward J. Argued for amici curiae.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Matthew S. That he was entitled to the corresponding pay and benefits.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In addition. Cl. 2.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Three separate actions are ordinarily required for a person to be appointed to office pursuant to this provision:<span s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962569.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that Bradley's death was the result of medical malpractice by military personnel. The Estate now appeals a decision by the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the United States on the basis that Bradley's injuries were incident to service and hence that this action is barred by the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity announced in Feres v. Bradley was accidentally punctured with an inoculator loop that was infected with Staphylococcus Aureus (Staph A) bacteria. Although Bradley's right foot was determined to be free of the Staph A infection by the end of 1991. Bradley was by then wheelchair 1 For ease of reference. She was removed from active duty status and placed on the Navy's Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL). Bradley was flown to NNMC by military transport from her home in Orlando. She was not admitted until the evening of February 19. She was not treated with an antibiotic until February 20. Because litigation relating to this incident was already pending in Maryland and because the majority of the witnesses were located there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5134.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. The trial court upheld the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1266.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garin</SPAN> were on the brief. Were on the brief. Plaintiffs are active duty members of the military. Plaintiffs argue that the October Resolution is constitutionally inadequate to authorize the military offensive that defendants are now planning against Iraq. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-3037.html">FOX V. OPM<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/022460p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-2167.opa.html">AKTEPE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aktepe v. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.<p> I. <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.<p> During the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5134.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/019661EF3BAAF4C488256D1D00793D3A/$file/0115098o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LOCKYER The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The right to keep and bear arms is in no way absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions such as those embedded in the statute the California legislature enacted. This case should have been reheard en banc. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held. We can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution. The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights. They have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-2167.opa.html">AKTEPE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aktepe v. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.<p> I. <i>BACKGROUND</i><p> <p> The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands.<p> During the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwMDk1X29wbi5wZGY=/03-40095_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge denying petitioner's request for asylum. Which were widely condemned internationally. He notes that these alleged brutalities were directed especially at his fellow Muslims and ethnic Albanians.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Islami was born a citizen of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. We will still refer to Islami's home country as Yugoslavia. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Islami first sought asylum in Germany in 1998. Was denied protection and ordered to return to Kosovo. The IJ found that even if Islami's claims of harassment and mistreatment were true. The IJ held that Islami's fears of future persecution were not well founded in light of improved conditions in Kosovo (particularly given the installation of a new government in Belgrade) since Islami's departure. This decision was summarily affirmed on May 28. Because compulsory military service is not a bona fide ground for claiming persecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="93"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962167.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are uncontested. The forces of participating Vice nations were assigned to either of two multinational teams. Were under the direct control of Admiral Kroon of the Netherlands. The Brown Forces were to attempt an amphibious landing at Saros Bay. All confrontations were intended to be simulated attacks. Certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill. The missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile. The order granting summary judgment also suggested that dismissal probably would have been required under Feres v. Separation of powers is a doctrine to which the courts must adhere even in the absence of an explicit statutory command. Supreme has declared </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5057.html">RONALD F. BERKLEY ET AL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6238.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) given Century's failure to prove defendants' statements were defamatory or that special damages were incurred. Its primary customers are martial arts schools. NAPMA is a martial arts trade association. The Martial Arts Professional Magazine is one of its monthly publications. NAMPA's materials have been described as a sort of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3061.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Earl Sanders. Because the Board's decision was not arbitrary. He was placed on leave without pay ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1345.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackie Marie Hudson are Sisters in the Dominican Order. They contend that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The site was in a state of high readiness the nuclear missiles were to be launched within 15 minutes of a Presidential order. Their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214427op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We substitute the following as the opinion of the court: The three plaintiffs in this case are Salvadoran refugees who were allegedly tortured by military personnel in El Salvador during a campaign of human rights violations by the Salvadoran military from 1979 to 1983. The two defendants were leaders in the Salvadoran military. The ATCA is a jurisdictional statute that does not. That the claims are not timebarred. I. The plaintiffs in this case are Juan Romagoza Arce. Was allegedly kidnaped by Salvadoran soldiers on or about December 12. Was allegedly abducted by Salvadoran soldiers on December 26. Was allegedly kidnaped on June 13. The defendants in this case are Jose Garcia and Carlos Vides Casanova. Casanova was appointed as his successor and held the position of Minister of Defense until he resigned in 1989. By claiming that the torture was actionable under the TVPA. Only aliens are authorized to bring suit under the ATCA. Arce sued under the ATCA even though he was naturalized citizen of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="92"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1623.html">SMITH V. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>Victor Kelley</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendants <span class=SpellE>appellees</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Lieutenant Colonel Vanessa <span class=SpellE>Crockford</span></u><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>and <u>Major Gary P. Smith could have brought his action in the United States Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02DD519077837BDA88256CED0052B320/$file/0155471.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide when a search conducted at the entry gate to a military base is reasonable. We remand to the district court to allow the development of a more complete factual record to determine whether implied consent was present here. Greg Morgan was a civilian air traffic controller employed by the Federal Aviation Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-5162.wpd.html">SPRADLING V. CITY OF TULSA<BR></A><BR> 1996 Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: A word was omitted on page 21. Who are now retired). Plaintiffs further allege they are required to attend training sessions and staff meetings but receive no overtime compensation for time spent in these sessions and meetings. The court applied the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968586.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. I. The United States Army School of the Americas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061477P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board determined that asylum relief was unavailable because Petitioner failed to file his asylum application within one year after entering the United States. We are without jurisdiction to review that determination. 635 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that a finding of untimeliness is a factual finding shielded from our review by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)). The denial of relief on the withholding of removal and CAT claims was based on an adverse credibility determination. We hold that the improper and prejudicial exclusion of evidence coupled with unreliable translation denied Petitioner a fair hearing in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 We need not address the parties' arguments as to whether we have jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of voluntary departure. General Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of Burma and a member of Burma's minority Arakan ethnic group. Was found removable. The IJ handling his case excluded a physician's affidavit and testimony that would have explained how scars and markings on Petitioner's body. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415666.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Colonel in the Haitian Armed Forces and Chief of Personnel from 1992 to 1994 was responsible for subjecting him to torture. Marie Jeanne Jean alleges that Dorélien is responsible for the extrajudicial killing of Michel Pierre. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8586.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CORRIGAN (6/25/1998, NO. 96-8586)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The United States Army School of the Americas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-7162a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968586.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: 1 Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. I. The United States Army School of the Americas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026895.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A detainee at the Norfolk Naval Station Brig who was captured as an alleged enemy combatant during ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. The President responded by ordering United States armed forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaida and the governing Taliban regime that was supporting it. Thousands of alleged enemy combatants have been captured by American and allied forces including. Hamdi was initially transferred to Camp X Ray at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. After it came to light that he was born in Louisiana and may not have renounced his American citizenship. Hamdi was brought to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig. His petition claims he was taken into custody in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. Believing that Hamdi's detention is necessary for intelligence gathering efforts. Concluded that the Defender's case was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTIxNDRfc28ucGRm/06-2144_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A77 929 795 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. That this petition for review is DENIED. We will vacate and remand for new findings if the agency's reasoning or its fact finding process was sufficiently flawed unless we can confidently predict that the IJ would adhere to the decision on remand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5108.html">DOE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 a quotation mark is added before the asterisks. The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superseding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5155.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Matthew S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Lieutenant Marc Rosen. Lewis urges that she was promoted as a matter of law under 10 U.S.C. § 624. Was based on an incorrect interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(1). We hold that Lewis' claim that she was promoted as a matter of law is barred by our decision in Dysart v. That the BCNR's decision denying her request for a correction of her personnel record was based on a proper understanding of 10 U.S.C. § 1094(a)(1). Lewis was an active duty Commander in the Navy Medical Corps. A new sentence was added to section 1094(a)(1). The physician may not provide health care as a physician under this chapter unless the current license is an unrestricted license . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="90"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-8586.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CORRIGAN (6/25/1998, NO. 96-8586)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The United States Army School of the Americas ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5197a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees Honorable Donald Rice. Was on brief for appellees William Miranda Marin. Tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and was discharged from PRANG and from his technician job. The Guard is a hybrid state and federal 2 2 organization.1 While a part of the Armed Forces of the United States. In each state the National Guard is a state agency. The differences between Puerto Rico and a state are immaterial in this context. Every member of the state Air National Guard is also enlisted in a federal organization known as the Air National Guard of the United States (ANGUS). Which is activated when the Guard is called into federal service. 10 U.S.C. 261. Guard technicians are federal civil servants. Plaintiff's Separation from Service Plaintiff's Separation from Service Plaintiff enlisted in PRANG in 1967 and was hired as a Guard technician two years later. From 1969 until he was discharged. That result was confirmed by a second test in June or early July 1990. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-5183.htm">97-5183 -- ROBERTSON V. U.S. -- 05/01/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Garland Robertson appeals from an order of the district court determining that defendant Air Force did not violate his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff argues on appeal that his involuntary retirement from active duty as an Air Force chaplain should be set aside because his retirement was based upon performance evaluations which served as religious censorship in violation of his First Amendment rights and also served to establish a military religion in violation of the First Amendment.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3460.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Is entitled to credit for active duty military service performed after 1956 under both the CSRS and the Social Security System. OPM is obligated to recompute the person's annuity payment when the person first becomes eligible for Social Security benefits. An applicant is required to make the deposit before the date of retirement or before the date OPM takes final action on the retirement application. Was directed to fill out Schedule A. Have you paid a deposit to your agency for this service? See Section B of the instructions for the effect on your annuity if the deposit is not paid. Stated that: The military service deposit must be paid to your agency while you are still employed. . . . If you do not make the deposit and you are eligible for Social Security benefits at age 62. Your annuity will be recomputed (at age 62) to eliminate credit for the post 1956 military service. Form 1515 is part of OPM's 04 3460 2 retirement application package. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958459.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0633n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ashcroft Petitioners are ethnic Albanians from Montenegro and are citizens of the country formerly known as Yugoslavia. Petitioners were detained and subsequently conceded their excludability. Notifying the BIA that an incomplete transcript of the Immigration Court proceedings was submitted to the BIA for its review. While their motion to reopen was pending. Gojcevic testified that when he was in Yugoslavia. Serbian police stopped and searched him because he was Albanian. Gojcevic asserted that he was persecuted by fellow soldiers and his captain. Gojcevic maintained that he was treated badly because he was Albanian. Among the conduct that Gojcevic asserted was mistreatment were instances when he was required to perform extra cleaning duties and an instance in which he overheard Serbian soldiers threaten to kill him. Gojcevic was imprisoned for two days because his superiors thought he had stolen military property. Gojcevic was discharged from the military and served as a reservist for four or five months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0152p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Humana Baptist contract defines a reimbursement scheme that is the center of the controversy. Humana has raised a defense to payment based on federal regulations limiting amounts that the government itself will pay to Humana as reimbursement on individual medical claims. The question is whether these regulations place a limit on the amount Humana must pay Baptist. The overall goal of the TRICARE program is to improve the quality. One aspect of the new TRICARE program was the establishment of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1456p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government alleged that Stelmokas was born in Moscow. From August 1939 until July 1940 Stelmokas was an officer in the Lithuanian army. The government contended that Stelmokas was a voluntary member and officer of the Schutzmannschaft and advocated. The complaint further alleged that in July 1949 Stelmokas sought a determination from the United States Displaced Persons Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-3034.html">CRAWFORD V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></sup></span><![endif]></span></span></sup></span></a> holding that his military service as a cadet in the United States Coast Guard Academy is not creditable for the purpose of calculating accrued leave time in the civil service.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The MSPB held that this is not discriminatory treatment under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (". 4333.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Board's decision is affirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>David Crawford is a civilian employee of the United States Department of Transportation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Before joining the agency. Crawford attended the Coast Guard Academy for the full period of 3 years and 11 months.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The question is whether Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962290.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Citadel announced that it had abandoned its male only policy and was admitting women to its Corps of Cadets. The district court entered an order declaring that The Citadel's earlier proposed parallel program at Converse College was unconstitutional and enjoining The Citadel to end its male only policy. Were moot and unnecessary. We also affirm the other orders challenged by The Citadel and Mellette. 4 I The Citadel is a state supported four year military college located in Charleston. When it discovered that Faulkner was female. An order permitting Faulkner's attendance is not tantamount at this time to integrating or altering the military program at The Citadel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033089p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is of particular interest at this time because of the large number of reservists called up for military duty as a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alleged events underlying this action are tragic. Plaintiff is Willie Gordon's mother and the administratrix of his estate. Were thus inapplicable in this case. Which plaintiff is now pursuing in state court. Are not relevant to this appeal. 2 1 The District Court exercised jurisdiction over plaintiff's USERRA claims under 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Our review of the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's USERRA claims is plenary. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is inappropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="89"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3147.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because we see no error in the Board's determination that Washburn failed to establish that he was entitled to the requested benefit. His CSRS annuity payment was reduced at age sixty two when he became eligible for Social Security because his military service credit was no longer included in the calculation of his benefit. Stating that he was not aware of his entitlement to receive credit for military service time prior to retiring. The OPM determined that Washburn was adequately notified of the need to pay the deposit prior to retiring. That the reduction of Washburn's annuity upon reaching age sixty two and becoming eligible for Social Security was therefore required. The AJ determined that the documentary evidence consistently supported a finding that Washburn had clear notice that he had to make a deposit for his military service in order to avoid losing credit for that service at age sixty two when he was eligible for Social Security. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E7E2BE59FAA1BD7388256E6F0072B757/$file/0271719.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is a native and citizen of Mexico. The immigration judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/00-5409a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Katerberg were on the brief for amicus curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Circuit Judge: The Secretary of the Treasury must authorize the importation of any firearm that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5034.html">MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiff appellant McDonnell Douglas Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Elizabeth A. Ferrell</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John W. Argued for plaintiff appellent General Dynamics Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David A. Perrelli</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-4119.htm">03-4119 -- U.S. V. PARKER -- 03/24/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTIxODhfc28ucGRm/06-2188_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A97 149 817 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. The BIA's order is VACATED. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3271.html">PATRICK J. SHEEHAN, V. DEPT. OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel was <U>Catherine Donovan</U>. The Board's decision is affirmed.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/056060P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ziemski appeals the bankruptcy court's order determining that his post petition receipt of certain military retirement benefits pursuant to a pre petition state court order was in violation of the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. Ziemski's violation of the automatic stay was willful. We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. We conclude that the military retirement benefits were not property of Ms. To the extent the balance of the order was based on that conclusion. Ziemski were divorced in 2001. Ziemski's retirement benefits were distributed to him in accordance with the November 3. The determination as to what constitutes property of the bankruptcy estate is a conclusion of law which we review de novo. Property rights are determined by state law. Ziemski was not entitled to receive any portion of the military retirement benefits when she filed her bankruptcy petition on November 9. To the extent the military retirement benefits are not property of Ms. Ziemski therefore could not have willfully violated the stay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-13546.opn.html">COMER V. CITY OF PALM BAY (9/17/2001, NO. 00-13546)<BR></A><BR> Filed an action against the City alleging that they were subjected to discrimination while they were employed by the City and suffered retaliation based on their complaints of discrimination. Palmer and Comer were both represented by attorneys Mark Tietig and Lisa K. A case management and scheduling order was filed in December 1998 which set forth a discovery deadline of 22 January 2000 and a trial date of 22 May 2000. Was ordered to report for active duty on 8 October 1999 at Fort Gordon. Palmer's attorney argued that Palmer was unable to assist in discovery or attend the trial due to his training commitments until June 20. Was covered by the Act . Palmer's response to the summary judgment motion and separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-13546.opn.html">COMER V. CITY OF PALM BAY (9/17/2001, NO. 00-13546)<BR></A><BR> Filed an action against the City alleging that they were subjected to discrimination while they were employed by the City and suffered retaliation based on their complaints of discrimination. Palmer and Comer were both represented by attorneys Mark Tietig and Lisa K. A case management and scheduling order was filed in December 1998 which set forth a discovery deadline of 22 January 2000 and a trial date of 22 May 2000. Was ordered to report for active duty on 8 October 1999 at Fort Gordon. Palmer's attorney argued that Palmer was unable to assist in discovery or attend the trial due to his training commitments until June 20. Was covered by the Act . Palmer's response to the summary judgment motion and separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001632.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Therefore NISH was not entitled to negotiate the contract for mess hall services at Fort Lee. Was enacted in 1936 to enlarge economic opportunities of the blind. By which the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2943_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daniel O'Sullivan is not a United States citizen. He was convicted of distributing cocaine. Which he concedes is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5049a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Michael E. With him on the brief were Daniel Meron. The dispute we address today arose from one of many instances in which Churchill's call to collaboration was heeded: the construction of the United States Navy Support Facility Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Is located in BIOT. The British have controlled these islands since 1814. Appellants Chagos Refugee Group and Chagos Social Committee are non profit associations that work to further the welfare of the Chagossians. Chagossians who traveled outside the archipelago were not allowed to return. Residents were threatened with death if they did not leave. All the cats and dogs on Diego Garcia were slaughtered. The remaining inhabitants of Diego Garcia were forced onto ships and sent to other islands in the archipelago. The entire population of the archipelago was removed two years later. Alexis claims the Chagossians were not fed during the six day sea voyage in harsh conditions. She states that her mother was pregnant at the time of the journey but miscarried the day after arriving in Seychelles. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1836.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Newhoff with whom Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic of Greater Boston Legal Services was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The Board found that petitioner did not have a well founded fear of persecution. She was fourteen years old when Jean Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti. The university's opening was delayed. She testified that she and other students were fearful because violent crime was rampant and because they had heard that the Ton Ton Macoutes. Were entering schools and kidnapping students. Petitioner's decision to flee Haiti was prompted by an incident that led her to believe that she was being persecuted because of her pro Aristide views. As she and six friends were standing outside her home discussing President Aristide and expressing their desire to see him restored to power. There are a lot of people who don't like Aristide and they can kill you. Was one of the regular customers at her grandmother's bread and coffee store. Which was located in the front of their home. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="86"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B0060CC6C9A8FD388256ECB005E36E8/$file/0355785.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To avoid confusion on the part of readers of the various decisions we will continue to refer to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115313.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed. While he was in college. Hall was commissioned back into the Army. The Halls initially were stationed at Fort Dix. Hall testified at sentencing that the separations were due to marital problems involving perceived financial difficulties. Making noises for almost an hour that indicated he was banging her head against the wall. Hall was overheard saying. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-5374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1207.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Varela</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5015.html">DANIEL A. LINDSAY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0419n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where they were charged with remaining in the United States longer than permitted. He denied the application for asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that it was not supported by credible 2 evidence. The evidence presented by the Ljuljdjurovics was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The Ljuljdjurovics argue that the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in finding that the their application was not supported by credible evidence. The evidence presented by the them was insufficient to demonstrate asylum eligibility. The decisions of the BIA and IJ are therefore AFFIRMED. Are both natives and citizens of the former Yugoslavia. Was born in the United States on March 21. No. 03 3699 3 Milan was born and lived in Podgorica. Milan's father is Albanian and his mother is Serbian. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-3326.htm">02-3326 -- FELTON V. LANSING -- 02/03/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Wayne T. Felton was serving in the United States Army when he was court martialed and subsequently convicted by a military court jury of attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. Felton was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. ANALYSIS</strong> <p> A COA is not necessary to appeal a final order in a 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-1386.htm">97-1386 -- MORSE V. WEST -- 01/13/1999<BR></A><BR> James Liedle and Russell Danis.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042852np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA's decision and that Veljovic's due process rights have not been violated. Who was born on September 11. Is a native of the former Yugoslavia and citizen of Serbia and Montenegro. He was denied admission because he did not possess valid travel documents. He eventually was paroled into the country pursuant to the Visa Waiver Pilot Program and referred to an IJ for a hearing. He was afraid of being ordered to participate in massacres of Albanians that were taking place as part of the war in Kosovo. Veljovic stated that he was first sent a military draft notice in September 1998. Which was in the same village as his parents' house. Veljovic testified that he is afraid to return to Serbia and Montenegro because he believes he will be jailed for refusing to refusing to serve in the military. Veljovic stated that he does not trust the government to comply with the amnesty law because the country is controlled by the same people who ruled with Milosevic. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1140.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Sought to recover in quantum meruit the amount over and above the original contract price that it was required to pay in order to complete the project after the contractor defaulted. United Pacific alleged that it was entitled to quantum meruit recovery because the contract at issue was illegal and therefore void ab initio. The contract was illegal because it was entered into in violation of two statutes. We cite to the versions of sections 2805 and 2811 that were in effect in 1995 when the contract at issue was formed. 2 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR> Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2446_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lance Corporal Rasheed Alhassan sought a discharge from the United States Marine 2 No. 04 2446 Corps as a conscientious objector but his request for conscientious objector status was denied. Alhassan petitioned the district court for relief under habeas corpus but the district court denied his petition finding that the Marine Corps had a basis in fact for denying him status as a conscientious objector because he made his request immediately after learning of his imminent departure to Iraq and he never expressed any anti war religious sentiment until he was about to be deployed. He was twenty one years old and declared that he was not a conscientious objector. Nor did he ever have. Alhassan was interviewed by various military officials. Captain Dansek concluded that Alhassan was suffering from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5050.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tink D. Because the Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that Murakami was not entitled to compensation under the Act. Or fifth column activity committed by Japanese Americans were ever established. Was a United States citizen born and raised in Los Angeles and nearby Terminal Island. He and his family were relocated by the Government to the Manzanar internment camp in the desert near Bishop. Who was also from Los Angeles. pregnant. Arthur Murakami's individual exclusion order was lifted when he was informed that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1338.html">HOWARD, ET AL. V. US, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> For plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Ronald J. For defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Katherine S. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945138.ORD.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) whether the First Amendment or the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that the United States government must furnish a list of Haitian migrants who are residing at Guantanamo Bay to the Haitian Refugee Center. Directing the United States Attorney General to parole unaccompanied minor Haitian migrants into the United States on the same terms that unaccompanied minor Cuban migrants have been or may be paroled. While many were lost at sea. 000 persons are to be allowed to migrate legally to the United States each year. Not including immediate relatives of United States citizens who are under no numerical restrictions. Cuban migrants have three options with respect to their residence: (1) they may remain in safe haven. This policy was implemented </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) whether the First Amendment or the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that the United States government must furnish a list of Haitian migrants who are residing at Guantanamo Bay to the Haitian Refugee Center. Directing the United States Attorney General to parole unaccompanied minor Haitian migrants into the United States on the same terms that unaccompanied minor Cuban migrants have been or may be paroled. While many were lost at sea. 000 persons are to be allowed to migrate legally to the United States each year. Not including immediate relatives of United States citizens who are under no numerical restrictions. Cuban migrants have three options with respect to their residence: (1) they may remain in safe haven. This policy was implemented </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021117.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Wilt was a full time employee of the Guard as a counter drug operations officer. Was also the commander of a special forces opera WILT v. Wilt told investigators that black guardsmen were the subject of racial discrimination within the Guard. Which was investigating the level of racist and extremist activity within the United States military. At least three separate investigations were subsequently initiated that involved Wilt in one way or another. Two of the investigations were initiated pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 15 6. The first of these concerned an incident in which 40 pounds of C 4 explosive were allegedly mislaid or disappeared while under Wilt's supervision. The second investigation under AR 15 6 was an investigation into Vance's death from a heart attack during a physical fitness test. He had been one of the officers present when the test was conducted. Wilt was relieved of his duties as a counter drug operations officer and assigned to work with the Chief of Staff of the Guard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/443A0DB2ECC5D4A188256A45005D38DA/$file/0010149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/45541e10f4a11dac88256e5a00707b21/$FILE/0010149.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3221.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The disposition will appear in tables published periodically. I The facts are undisputed. He was serving in the United States Army. In 1984 the Roccos were divorced in New Mexico. This voluntary election by [Louis Rocco] is in consideration of [Carol Rocco]'s having given up her career on numerous occasions to relocate and start again in her own career because of changes in [Louis Rocco]'s duty stations during his military career. Retroactively deducted from Louis Rocco's annuity and paid Carol Rocco the amounts she would have received 05 3221 2 under the divorce decree. (2000). The administrative judge held that Carol Rocco did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/443a0db2ecc5d4a188256a45005d38da/$FILE/0010149.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3172.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were citizens of Bar. As a visitor using a passport and visa The Attorney General has been substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1 2 No. 02 3172 he later admitted were fraudulent. Which was eventually denied by the INS on February 15. Elvis Capric were placed in deportation proceedings for remaining in the United States beyond their authorized periods of stay. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(C)(I) (Supp. Capric was also placed in deportation proceedings for having procured entry into the United States by fraud or by wilfully misrepresenting a material fact. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(A). This second asylum application was not actually filed until a hearing on July 18. His wife and sons were included in that application.2 Two hearings were held on Capric's asylum application. We will refer to the singular Petitioner or Capric to describe all of the Petitioners as well as Mr. The substantive outcome of Capric's claims is determinative for all Petitioners. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(d). Was conducted in English at the suggestion of Capric's counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3375.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Bullock. Of counsel was Captain Richard S. Federal government employees who are members of the Armed Forces Reserve components are entitled to 15 days of annual military leave </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3422.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND We assume familiarity with our earlier opinion and will repeat only those facts that are necessary for resolving the issues presently before us. The LCP is an eighteen month program that uses military training methods to teach </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45541E10F4A11DAC88256E5A00707B21/$file/0010149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3337.html">JOSEPH V. MAZARES, JR., V. DEPT. OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5037a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crystal was on the briefs. Were on the brief. The program provides for the annual killing of deer by park employed marksmen after dark from October through March until a desired density of deer per wooded square mile is achieved. All of whom were joined as parties defendant (collectively. The first of these relates to Davis's argument that the Park Service was required by the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72EBA711E550BAD988256BAC004EB922/$file/0170836.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fled Guatemala for the United States and sought asylum and withholding of deportation because they were persecuted on account of their imputed political opinion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). Hector was a colonel in the Guatemalan army. Hector </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NTYtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4756-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673 because petitioner's arguments were frivolous within the meaning of the statute. The claim is not new. 1 although it is presented in somewhat unusual garb. 000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1) based on its conclusion that petitioner's arguments were frivolous within the meaning of the See. 176 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that taxpayers cannot withhold the portion of their taxes which they calcu late will be allocated for military purpose s). Any other acceptable materials . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. We conclude that his legal arguments are without merit. It is well settled that the collection of tax revenues for expenditures that offend the religious beliefs of individual taxpayers does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It is similarly well settled that RFRA does not afford a right to avoid payment of taxes for religious reasons. 176 F.3d at 26 (rejecting RFRA claim on the ground that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3160.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Phillips was observed via closed circuit television switching the price tag of a large black Coach wallet. Determined the agency's penalty of removal was justified. We have jurisdiction from an appeal of a final decision of the Board pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). ANALYSIS Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited. Phillips's only argument on appeal is that the Board's decision was improper in view of the dismissal of the criminal charges against her on September 3. She does not allege that it 05 3160 2 was otherwise presented to the Board. Cir. 1996) (affirming the Board's dismissal and stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-3182.htm">02-3182 -- ROGERS V. ANDRASCHKO -- 12/30/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2083.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. 2000 a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by eleven individuals alleging that as citizens of the United States residing in Puerto Rico they are being deprived of the right to vote for the candidates to the offices of President and Vice President of the United States. The first includes individuals who have always resided in Puerto Rico and whose claim is based on their alleged right to vote for the national offices in question because they consider it a right inherent in United States citizenship. The second group is comprised of former residents of states who were eligible to vote during such residence in the States but became ineligible to do so upon taking residency in Puerto Rico. Because Puerto Rico is included within the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/95-3085.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HENNING<BR></A><BR> Henning argues that the district court should have granted him a three point reduction in his base offense level pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines 3B1 because of his mitigating role in the offense. He believes the district court should have used the guideline for second degree murder. The facts of the case are well summarized in Mr. Michael Regehr was celebrating his last night in the United States Army and was buying drinks for everyone all night. That he was pleased to be returning home to his family in Oregon. The victim stated he was tired and wished to return to his barracks. The defendant was right next to Grady and the victim. When Grady was done. Once the victim's body was in the car. Henning perjured himself and testified that he was not present when Mr. Regehr was murdered. Grady was convicted of premeditated murder under 10 U.S.C. 918. Henning first argues that he was entitled to a downward adjustment of three levels for his mitigating role as an accessory after the fact pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/97-5333b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Daniel G. Was on the briefs for appellant. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Claiming that (1) her supervisor had sexually ha rassed her while she was employed by the Navy as a summer intern and (2) in retaliation for her complaining about the harassment the Navy refused to rehire her the following summer. We hold that a reasonable jury could find that Greene was sexually harassed by her Navy supervisor. The judgment of the district court is reversed in part and affirmed in part. She was a 22 year old graduate student at the time. Clause admitted having sex with Greene but claimed that it was consensual. Candidate was hired for the position. The court rea soned that her allegations of sexual harassment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep22/03-41260-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Primarily at issue is whether. Criminally negligent homicide under Texas law is equivalent to manslaughter and. The two offenses are not District Judge of the Northern District of Texas. The enhancement is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for I. He pleaded guilty in April 2002 to criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. Dominguez (a Mexican citizen) was released in November 2002 and deported to Mexico in January 2003. He was found by Border Patrol Agents near Alamo. The district 8 U.S.C. §§ claiming that offense was not a crime of violence. court overruled the objection and sentenced Dominguez. Dominguez claims the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-3155.htm">99-3155 -- YEARWOOD V. NICKLES -- 11/09/1999<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Randal E. Yearwood was convicted of murder by general court martial in 1980. Yearwood's parole was suspended and a Preliminary Interview was conducted during which he admitted to using marijuana. The ACPB later ruled that a warrant was to issue for Mr. Yearwood was arrested on a state charge of assaulting a sixteen year old girl. Yearwood was incarcerated pending disposition of the charge. Which was subsequently dismissed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/97-3133.htm">97-3133 -- WIMBERLY V. MCKUNE -- 03/16/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Ormond Lee Wimberly. Jr. was convicted in Kansas state court of first degree murder. Was found early June 17. Which was parked in a lot in downtown Topeka. When the petitioner was charged with felony murder. That the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. <u>See</u> <u>State v. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Experts in fingerprinting testified that petitioner's prints were on receipts. Woody's close friends were called to state that they had never seen petitioner in her company or heard her speak of him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-3247.htm">00-3247 -- WHITE V. LANSING -- 03/08/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> John C. White was convicted for murder of his infant daughter. Declined to consider two issues that were untimely. Correctly noting that when a military court decision has already dealt fully and fairly with an issue on appeal that is later raised in a habeas petition. We have fully reviewed the record and conclude that the four grounds raised both on direct appeal and in the habeas petition undoubtedly were fully and fairly considered by the AFCCA while applying correct legal standards. <em>See Lips</em>. That the habeas court therefore should have reached the merits on at least those two issues. <em>See</em> R. They are (1) whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7089.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. At which time she was sexually assaulted by a United States Army recruiter named Kelvin Key. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTU4MzAtYWdfc28ucGRm/04-5830-ag_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A79 308 996 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of A ppe llate Procedure 43(c)(2). Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Johannes Roberto Singara petitions for review of the BIA's October 2004 decision in which the BIA affirmed Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4280.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cummings's Den Hartog argument as it relates to his wrongful termination claim is advanced for the first time on appeal. The hiring process for these seasonal positions is informal. Cummings because she believed he was an alcoholic. Arguing that he was discriminated against on the basis of a perceived disability. While the investigation was still in progress. Cummings was reassigned to a ranger position without law enforcement duties. The investigation revealed that these applications were replete with misrepresentations and inconsistencies. Cummings was fired in March 1996. All of his claims were dismissed on summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5333b.html">GREENE LURIA N. V. DALTON, JOHN H.<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs was <i>Daniel G. <p> Jarcho. Was on the briefs for <p> appellant.<p> <p> <p> <i>Brian J. With him on the brief were <i>Wilma A. <p> Lewis</i>. Claiming that (1) her supervisor had sexually ha <p> rassed her while she was employed by the Navy as a summer <p> intern and (2) in retaliation for her complaining about the <p> harassment the Navy refused to rehire her the following <p> summer. We hold that a reasonable jury could find that Greene <p> was sexually harassed by her Navy supervisor. The judgment of the district court is <p> reversed in part and affirmed in part.<p> <p> I. She was a 22 year old <p> graduate student at the time. Conduct unbecoming an officer. <p> Clause admitted having sex with Greene but claimed that it <p> was consensual. Candidate was <p> hired for the position. The court rea <p> soned that her allegations of sexual harassment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034679.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CROMRATIE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Cromratie was in criminal history category VI. His guideline range was 63 78 months. (2) the error was plain. Even when these conditions are satisfied. Whether the departure was based on a factor that (1) does not advance the objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(2) (West Supp. 2004). (2) is not authorized by § 3553(b). Or (3) is not justified by the facts of the case. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(e)(3)(B)(i) (iii) (West Supp. 2004). If the departure is justified. An upward departure pursuant to § 4A1.3 is encouraged. Even if the defendant is in category VI. If the court finds that the defendant's record is egregious or serious. The district court's determination that an encouraged factor is not already accounted for in the guideline is reviewed de novo. Five more than were necessary to place him in category VI. A factor listed in § 4A1.3(b) that may support a departure is whether the defendant has received prior sentences </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B988EB23CCBCCCE88256C2C0057C4D3/$file/0055846.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: IN RE: CASTILLO 13285 1. Parallel citations are added to the end of the first sentence in Part IV.C.iii. Trustee are enumerated in 11 U.S.C. §§ 704. A parallel citation is added to the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph in Part IV.C.iii. Because we further conclude that the giving of notice is a part of the discretionary scheduling function. Nancy Curry was appointed as 13286 IN RE: CASTILLO Trustee in Castillo's case. After Castillo's petition was filed. The confirmation hearing was actually set for December 3. Neither Castillo nor her counsel was notified of the rescheduled confirmation hearing date. A confirmation hearing was held. The debtor's Chapter 13 case was dismissed on December 16. Received notice of the dismissal sometime after it was served on December 19. Castillo contended that (1) the Trustee was negligent in scheduling the December 3. (2) the Trustee was not immune from suit. The court reasoned that the Trustee had a duty to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83890BCF072D006C88256C01007DE4BF/$file/0055846.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we further conclude that the giving of notice is a part of the discretionary scheduling function. Nancy Curry was appointed as Trustee in Castillo's case. After Castillo's petition was filed. The confirmation hearing was actually set for December 3. Neither Castillo nor her counsel was notified of the rescheduled confirmation hearing date. A confirmation hearing was held. The debtor's Chapter 13 case was dismissed on December 16. Received notice of the dismissal sometime after it was served on December 19. Castillo contended that (1) the Trustee was negligent in scheduling the December 3. (2) the Trustee was not immune from suit. The court reasoned that the Trustee had a duty to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-3372.htm">02-3372 -- HOLLEY V. ANDRASCHKO -- 10/22/2003<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael R. 2241 habeas applications while he was a military prisoner incarcerated in the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) in Fort Leavenworth. Holley was no longer in custody. He was granted a temporary home parole. He failed to return to USDB at the assigned time and was placed on escape status. Holley was apprehended in August 1999 in Phoenix. While the case was pending. He was unconditionally released from confinement on November 20. Was filed February 12. Holley again alleged that his sentence was illegally extended and also asserted that he was being held in high risk disciplinary segregation without justification or due process. A litigant must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="82"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5104.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I WIMSA was formed for the purpose of establishing a memorial (the Memorial) at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor women in military service. WIMSA was permitted to proceed with construction of the Memorial. Safety within the area involved until the work was completed. Thereafter as long as the Memorial was in place. WIMSA was responsible for all damages to lands or other property of the United States caused by WIMSA or by WIMSA's employees.
	99-3283 -- PAALAN V. NICKELS -- 02/16/2000 Is presently incarcerated at the United States Disciplinary Barracks. Paalan filed an action in United States District Court for the District of Kansas alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was denied prescribed heart medication for a period of five months while at the Fort Leavenworth facility. (See Doc. 1.). In which the Supreme Court held that an injured party may not recover damages under the Federal Torts Claims Act for injuries that
	OPINION/ORDER Was a student of Kajukenbo. Bevolo was to be promoted to an orange belt. He was wearing his Gi. The warm up and sparring session was followed by a promotions ceremony and
	DAVID ALAN CARMICHAEL V. U.S. Argued for defendant appellee.
	WILLIAM P. FORD V. GARCIA (4/30/2002, NO. 01-10357) Is the allocation of the burden of proof in a civil action involving the command responsibility doctrine brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act. Were abducted. The Guardsmen were convicted of the crimes and sentenced to prison terms.
	OPINION/ORDER Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam.
	OPINION/ORDER Sought a declaration from the district court that NMMI is bound by the IDEA. It guarantees that such an education is given by instructing states to create an Individualized Education Plan (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction to review the petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2000). Haddad is a 36 year old native and citizen of Syria and is a Roman Orthodox Christian. He testified at his asylum hearing that although Syrians are required to join the Ba'ath Party at age 15. Nedal was a college student and opposed the dictatorship in Syria. Where Nedal was beaten. The family was unable to locate Nedal for three years. He spent six years in prison where he was tortured. similarly arrested and imprisoned for several years. Feeling that he was under constant surveillance by the Syrian Intelligence Service. Where he claims he was discriminated against based on his Christian faith. He was given less leave time than other soldiers and was denied a request for one day of leave on Easter. Haddad testified that he was jailed in a military jail for one week shortly after he joined the military for refusing to join the Ba'ath Party. He was jailed a second time following the denial of his request for leave time at 2 Two of Haddad's cousins were Easter.
	OPINION/ORDER Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam.
	KANEKO V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER Adekpe is a citizen of Togo. All agree that Togo is not a good place in which to hold political views adverse to those of the government. The Togolese govern 2 No. 05 3951 ment
	WILLIAM P. FORD V. GARCIA (4/30/2002, NO. 01-10357) Is the allocation of the burden of proof in a civil action involving the command responsibility doctrine brought under the Torture Victim Protection Act. Were abducted. The Guardsmen were convicted of the crimes and sentenced to prison terms.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Steven E. The Board's decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the Board for adjudication of the merits of Mr. The announcement stated that the position was
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Page 22. Byrnes & Morton were on brief for appellant Martin Quigley. Rosanna Cavallaro were on brief for appellant Richard Clark Johnson. Hamilton & Dahmen was on brief for appellant Christina Leigh Reid. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the Second Circuit. Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for their roles in terrorist activities directed against the British presence in Northern Ireland. Background The facts as the jury could have found them are as follows. Was engaged in the research and development of explosives for export to the Republic of Ireland and use by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the PIRA) in its attacks against British civilian and military targets there and elsewhere. Johnson is a highly educated and trained electrical engineer. Were issued along with those for appellants. Maguire is an Irish national who is not present in the United States. Was not present at trial. Neither is a party to this appeal. 4 him in the basement of his parents' home in Harwich.
	NATALI V. PRINCIPI Argued for respondent appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Of counsel was Nancy Kim. Natali has not shown that any error in the process leading to the 1945 rating decision would have altered the result in this case. Natali was given a physical examination that included an assessment of his vision. The report from the physical examination noted that Mr. He was hospitalized for headaches. Natali was diagnosed with astigmatism mixed. and stated that his vision was [a]ggravated by service in the WW II. The examination report indicated a diagnosis of amblyopia. Natali s eye condition was service connected. A rating board memorandum indicated that the rating board s action was deferred pending receipt of additional clinical records hereinafter requested because [t]he evidence in file is insufficient to show whether or not veteran s eye condition was aggravated by the accident which occurred November 2.
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in holding that (1) all of plaintiff's claims were non justiciable under the doctrine established in Feres v. (2) some of plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. (3) plaintiff was not entitled to partial summary judgment based upon the district court's prior rulings. We hold that plaintiff was not entitled to partial summary judgment based upon the district court's prior rulings. affirm. Background Plaintiff was a dual status employee with the Iowa Air National Guard (IANG). He was a full time civil engineer at the IANG base in Sergeant His eligibility for Bluffs. We military service was a requirement of his continued employment as a civil On June 9. Plaintiff was discharged from the IANG after a As a consequence. Defendant Swanstrom was his commanding officer. Defendant Lawson was the Adjutant General of 2 recommended that plaintiff be reinstated to the positions he would have occupied had he not had a break in service. Plaintiff also filed an application with the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) seeking to have the medical disqualification removed from his military records.
	OPINION/ORDER Hsu and Yang principally challenge their convictions on the ground that the Arms Export Control Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied to them and that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment. The State Department will not approve a license to export any Munitions List items.
	OPINION/ORDER 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (noting finding of removability was based on petitioner's concession of removability). The IJ's grant of relief necessarily requires the IJ to have already determined Muradin is removable. We therefore have jurisdiction to review the BIA's order of removal in this case because it followed an initial determination of removability by the IJ. To conclude that
	02-3335 -- PARKER V. CALDERA -- 03/27/2003 The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained while he was a military prisoner housed at the United States Disciplinary Barracks. The district court ruled that liability was foreclosed by the Feres doctrine. Which bars suits against the federal government
	OPINION/ORDER That the application was frivolous. Abbo now contends that (1) the IJ's negative credibility finding was erroneous because the cited 1 No. 04 3303 Abbo v. Gonzales inconsistences were minor in character. His command of the Chaldean language is marginal. Abbo testified that he was born in the notably Chaldean northern village of Telkaif. Abbo claimed at his hearing that he was ordered to prepare food and wash clothing
	OPINION/ORDER That their remaining claims were barred by res judicata. The claims in Davis I were based on alleged conduct by DART and Chief Rodriguez occurring between November 1998 and February 2001. The claims in Davis II were predicated on various alleged incidents of discrimination and retaliation occurring between March 2001 and Davis I (Davis & Johnson v. No. 3:01 CV 2595 M) was filed in state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case was removed to federal court. Johnson is still employed with DART as a corporal. Johnson's claims were dismissed February 1. Davis's claims were dismissed February 21. 2002. 4 3 2 1 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is an attorney's fee provision. 2 April 2002. The court held that Appellants failed to present a genuine issue of material fact about whether their nonselection for lieutenant promotions was based on either race discrimination or retaliation. Were precluded as res judicata by the judgment in Davis I. Forecloses relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action.
	OPINION/ORDER Herbert Epsteinand International Institute of Boston were on brief. Were on brief. When that country was part of the Soviet Union. Lithuania became independent and has held two elections that international observers have certified as free and fair. That some former Communists have engaged in violent reprisals against those who took part in Lithuania's democracy movement. That numerous specific threats have been directed against him. Which he said were sent to his family. It is well established that general changes in country conditions do not render an applicant ineligible for asylum when. There is a specific danger to the applicant. The authenticity of Gailius' physical evidence and the credibility of the account of threats against him is a central issue in his case. Which we are required by statute to perform. Is impossible. Irmantas Gailius was born in 1971 in what was then the Soviet Socialist Republic of Lithuania. Gailius was also a member of the Lithuanian National Youth Union
	OPINION/ORDER The District Court ruled that the Secretary's recommendations were invalid and the Secretary has appealed. Whether the portion of the Department of Defense report that recommends deactivation of the 111 th Fighter Wing is null and void because Governor Rendell did not consent to the deactivation. Which reads: To secure a force the units of which when combined will form complete higher tactical units. (Emphasis added) The District Court based its conclusion on the premise that the Secretary's recommendation was equivalent to a change and. We need not address the issue of justiciability because we conclude that the case is now moot. Hence we will vacate the District Court's February 7. The facts germane to our review are neither complex nor extensive. (DBCRA) Its purpose was to
	OPINION/ORDER Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER This Federal Tort Claims Act suit was brought by the family of a former U.S. Who himself is not a plaintiff. Which occurred while he was a civilian. He was exposed to Leishmaniasis. Leishmaniasis is borne by sand flies. This medical examination was part of the
	MILES V. NAVAL AVIATION MUSEUM FOUND., INC. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-11026) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction to review the petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and will deny the petition. Is from Cabinda. Various humanitarian organizations report that both Angolan government forces and FLEC have committed human rights abuses against their perceived enemies in the course of this bloody dispute. Cabinda is ethnically and linguistically distinct from the rest of Angola and geographically disconnected from the country. 3 1 At age sixteen. Kibinda was identified by the Angolan government as a talented student and sent. Allegedly against his will. After that training was complete. Kibinda was inducted into the Angolan army. Again allegedly against his will. The Angolan army was fighting rebel forces within Angola. During the time Kibinda was stationed in Luanda. An order was issued by the Angolan army requiring that all officers remain inside the Luandan military complex due to a violent protest that was being held in the city by the Bakongo ethnic group. Kibinda was discovered returning to his barracks from an overnight stay outside the military complex.
	OPINION/ORDER Eda\'s wife and daughters were included in his asylum\ application. \ ' var WPFootnote3 = '
	OPINION/ORDER Was on the briefs. Were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America. I Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) (
	OPINION/ORDER Doe asserts that § 12305 is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although we conclude that this case is not moot. Doe was assigned to the 2668th Transportation Company based in Sacramento. Doe was notified that he would be required to serve on active duty until March 31. Doe's unit was deployed to Fort Lewis. Was never sent to Iraq. Where he was to receive health care evaluations and treatment. Doe argued that the involuntary extension of his enlistment was contrary to constitutional and statutory DOE v. Which was denied on October 5. The government submitted a brief suggesting Doe's appeal is moot. The government represented that Doe would not be returned to active duty under § 12305 after the medical assignment is completed. We conclude Doe continues to have a personal stake in the outcome of this case sufficient to avoid dismissal on the ground of mootness. 478 (1990) (
	OPINION/ORDER Is the proper respondent. That Marcos's fear of future persecution was undermined by changed country conditions in the Philippines. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We hold that the IJ's decision was not 1 Marcos also raises a due process challenge to the BIA's decision to streamline his case. That argument is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Marcos's argument that the decision to streamline violates the streamlining regulations is moot. The NPA made general threats over the radio
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He was placed in removal proceedings. Lamijan was raised as a Muslim but became interested in the Christian religion while attending the Indonesian Naval Academy. Because he protested that some of the military's actions and techniques were contrary to his principles. Petitioner was baptized with the first name of Jason. He did not have a first name. His name is shown in the caption as FNU LAMIJAN. The court will refer to petitioner as Mr. In the belief that he would have difficulties in obtaining a passport and visa as an unmarried military man. When the request was denied. Brothers were arrested at their home in East Java and interrogated in Jakarta about allegations of his selling state secrets. Lamijan is not entitled to asylum. Lamijan
	OPINION/ORDER This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which appellant alleged that he was denied opportunities for promotion in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Appellees countered that the decisions to promote persons other than appellant were made on the merits. They were. I The appellant in this action is William Markel. The appellees are Harry McIndoe and Penn Hills. McIndoe was arrested on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The purpose of which was to determine eligible candidates for promotion to the rank of sergeant in the Penn Hills Police Department. The person ranked third on the elibility list was promoted to sergeant. The person ranked first was promoted. The person originally ranked fourth was promoted. Their argument ¾ which the magistrate judge found persuasive ¾ was that. § 7104(b) would in any event have prohibited appellees from promoting Markel ahead of any eligible veterans. 1991 eligibility list were veterans. Markel argues that it was error to grant summary judgment.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief was Lt. Fluellen appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the United States motion for summary judgment that Fluellen s nonselection for promotion to major was not unlawful or invalid. See Fluellen v. Fluellen is a former captain in the Air Force Reserves. Because Fluellen was not selected for promotion twice. He was involuntarily discharged in 1992. See 10 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1) (1994).
	OPINION/ORDER Who pled guilty to importing goods into the United States that were not marked with the country of origin in violation of 18 U.S.C. Only two of the issues are of general interest and precedential value. We conclude that statements made during the factual basis portion of the plea colloquy after the plea agreement has been made are not stipulations for the purpose of section 1B1.2. We will reverse the judgment to the extent that it relied on the fraud guidelines in sentencing the defendants. 3 The second question concerns whether the president of a defense contracting company occupies a position of trust with regard to the government. Are supported by the record and are legally correct. We will therefore affirm the District Court's decision to increase Nathan's base offense level two points on this ground. We will affirm in part. Nathan was Electrodyne's president and vice president. Lander was its director of marketing. They stipulated that the applicable sentencing guideline was the smuggling guideline.
	OPINION/ORDER Is a male native and citizen of Burma.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff after a four day bench trial. The Museum transferred the aircraft to the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation (
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: At page 1022. First new paragraph: modify the first full sentence so that it states:
	OPINION/ORDER He was in Cubic's employ for three months prior to becoming associated with Sprint PCS. Gagnon was directly supervised by Kathleen Wilder. Gagnon was promoted in October 1997 to CBT Manager. Wilder was out of the office on maternity leave and Jim Keenan. Vice President Jim Mendenhall was instrumental in promoting Gagnon to the manager position. We also note that there are two pending motions taken with the case. Appellant's Motion for Judicial Reassignment is denied. Appellant's Motion for Waiver of Costs is granted pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h). 2 1 Because Gagnon's position was new at Sprint PCS. It did not have a dollar figure assigned for compensation. The MRP is not a guaranteed salary point. When a salary increase greater than ten percent is sought. A Compensation Exception Request form stating the amount of the raise requested is completed. Mendenhall's rejection of the initial compensation request is an important part of Gagnon's claim of discrimination.
	97-2257 -- U.S. V. ADAMS -- 04/14/1998 He contends he should have been sentenced under 32 C.F.R.
	MILES V. NAVAL AVIATION MUSEUM FOUND., INC. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-11026) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Ahmed was placed in removal proceedings pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because he feared that he would be killed by the same militants if he were compelled to return to his native Algeria. The FIS was poised to repeat its success in the next round of national elections and would likely have commanded an absolute parliamentary majority when a military coup in January 1992 brought the entire process to an abrupt halt. After several of his colleagues were killed by armed Islamic militants while being transported by bus from the airport where they served as security guards to the government compound where they lived. Ahmed was placed in removal proceedings. The IJ concluded that Ahmed was statutorily ineligible for relief. Because he had not pointed to anything that was separable from the occupational hazards that went along with those jobs. Our review throughout is governed by the substantial evidence standard. We assess whether the BIA's determination was
	OPINION/ORDER Hold that he is entitled to withholding of deportation. We also conclude Ventura is eligible for asylum. I. Ventura is a 30 year old native and citizen of Guatemala. Ventura stated that all three notes were the same and that they read. Or your family will suffer the consequences.
	OPINION/ORDER The facts are derived from the plaintiffs' pleadings and the affidavits submitted by the parties. Plaintiff Ronald Marchese is a tenured professor in the University of Minnesota system. He is a professor of humanities. Professor Burnham was the faculty advisor to the Club. 2 conceived an idea for a project that was intended to publicize some of the areas of expertise and interest of the history department's faculty. As well as a quotation to be used along with the above information and their photographs. 2 The Kohns have now graduated from UMD. 2 For his photograph. The Kohns assembled an exhibit that incorporated these photographs along with the written comments submitted by each faculty member. public interest.3 The exhibit was The photographs and the accompanying written material were thought to communicate matters of He listed his specialties as
	97-2047 -- ARAGON V. U.S. -- 06/23/1998 The base was redesignated Walker Air Force Base (the
	OPINION/ORDER Hold that he is entitled to withholding of deportation. We also conclude Ventura is eligible for asylum. I. Ventura is a 30 year old native and citizen of Guatemala. Ventura stated that all three notes were the same and that they read. Or your family will suffer the consequences.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Z were convicted of entering onto the Camp Garcí. Each was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. . The four cases (along with four others) were consolidated for trial in the district court on July 6. Appellants were convicted and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment.
	JAMES J. TERRY V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI Argued for respondent appellee. On the brief were David M. Trial Attorney.
	SANTAMORENA V. GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE (7/31/1998, NO. 97-9214) Because we agree with the district court that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. He contends the military lost jurisdiction to hold him when he was dishonorably discharged from the military. Russell argues that because he is no longer an active member of the military. The military courts are barred from reviewing. Both the Supreme Court and this court have held that a complete discharge does not deprive the military of jurisdiction over individuals similarly situated to Russell. Russell is simply wrong in asserting he cannot exhaust his military remedies because the military courts no longer have jurisdiction over him and the district court was correct in dismissing Russell's 2241 petition without prejudice based on Russell's failure to exhaust. (1) Because Russell is a federal prisoner proceeding under 2241. 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997). The order of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is hereby AFFIRMED.
	CUBAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOC. V. CHRISTOPHER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Cuban American Bar Assoc. v. (3) whether the First Amendment or the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that the United States government must furnish a list of Haitian migrants who are residing at Guantanamo Bay to the Haitian Refugee Center. Directing the United States Attorney General to parole unaccompanied minor Haitian migrants into the United States on the same terms that unaccompanied minor Cuban migrants have been or may be paroled. While many were lost at sea. 000 persons are to be allowed to migrate legally to the United States each year. Not including immediate relatives of United States citizens who are under no numerical restrictions. Cuban migrants have three options with respect to their residence: (1) they may remain in safe haven. While more than 1000 Cubans have requested voluntarily to be returned to Cuba. Cuba.<p> The United States government's expressed desire is not to maintain these migrants for an indefinite period of time or against their will. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0393p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute is over a series of toy vehicles produced by Lanard called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5129.html">PALMER DAVID V. US<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were David M. Circuit Judge.<p> <p> This is a military pay case. Palmer II on his claim for pay he alleged to have been wrongfully denied. Is not entitled to pay for duty he did not perform. This assignment was for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/02-5037a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/01-5383a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-1083a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5013.html">TOTAL MANAGEMENT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a1008n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vehicle was in front of the Sherith Israel Congregation. The citizen noticed that Smith was following him and 1ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE did a U turn. The officers were unable to get close enough to apprehend him. The pursuing officers were joined by backup. Spores was later convicted of possession of unregistered firearms. Which is consistent with communications discovered by law enforcement1 and Smith's own admissions. The edition in effect at the time the PSR was written. The 2003 edition was enacted. A finding that the firearms were possessed with knowledge. Smith was found to be in Criminal History Category I. The district court found that application of the grouping rules did not adequately take into account the hate crime and vulnerable victims enhancements to Count One because Count One was disregarded without increasing the offense level for Counts Two. The relevant sentencing range for a level 30 crime and Criminal History Category I was a term of imprisonment of 97 121 months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0921n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vehicle was in front of the Sherith Israel Congregation. The citizen noticed that Smith was following him and did a U turn. The officers were unable to get close enough to apprehend him. The pursuing officers were joined by backup. Spores was later convicted of possession of unregistered firearms. Which is consistent with communications discovered by law enforcement1 and Smith's own admissions. The edition in effect at the time the PSR was written. The 2003 edition was enacted. Did not state which version it was applying. Because it was the most recently enacted version. We will assume that the district court applied the 2003 42 1 Four had an offense level of 25. A finding that the firearms were possessed with knowledge. Smith was found to be in Criminal History Category I. The district court found that application of the grouping rules did not adequately take into account the hate crime and vulnerable victims enhancements to Count One because Count One was disregarded without increasing the offense level for Counts Two. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/94-0001y.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the petition is not well taken. It is hereby ORDERED. 850.00 that he claims were incurred during and as a result of the investigation conducted by Independent Counsel. Alleging that during the 1980's while he was Governor there and she was a state employee. Jones's attorneys sought other government employees towards whom the President may have made sexual advances. Also subpoenaed at the time was Linda Tripp. Who had been investigating allegations of shady business deals on the part of Clinton and others while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. That an influential friend of the President's was trying to find Lewinsky a job. Who then conducted a preliminary investigation pursuant to § 591(a) of the Act to determine whether further investigation was warranted. The AG determined that further investigation was indeed warranted. The President was deposed in Jones v. Nelvis was a Navy Chief Petty Officer assigned to the White House during the Clinton administration. It appears that his main function was tending to the personal needs of the President by providing the President and his visitors with food and refreshments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-5199a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Michael E. With him on the brief were Daniel Meron. Who at the time of the relevant events was the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. That the CIA was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011359.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sex and age and in retaliation for her complaints of such discrimination. I. Ethel Hill was hired by Lockheed as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic in 1987. Thomas Prickett was Lockheed's program manager in charge of the contract field teams and Archie Griffin was the East Coast senior site supervisor for Lockheed. They were rarely present at the individual military jobsites. Hill and the other aircraft mechanics were directly supervised by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5052a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2006\05 5052 Smalls15a.odl.wpd
	SANTAMORENA V. GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE (7/31/1998, NO. 97-9214) Because we agree with the district court that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm.
	OPINION/ORDER On the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. I Mueller is a Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) in the U.S. Mueller received a fitness report (the
	CUBAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOC. V. CHRISTOPHER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Cuban American Bar Assoc. v. (3) whether the First Amendment or the Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment dictates that the United States government must furnish a list of Haitian migrants who are residing at Guantanamo Bay to the Haitian Refugee Center. Directing the United States Attorney General to parole unaccompanied minor Haitian migrants into the United States on the same terms that unaccompanied minor Cuban migrants have been or may be paroled. While many were lost at sea. 000 persons are to be allowed to migrate legally to the United States each year. Not including immediate relatives of United States citizens who are under no numerical restrictions. Cuban migrants have three options with respect to their residence: (1) they may remain in safe haven. While more than 1000 Cubans have requested voluntarily to be returned to Cuba. Cuba.<p> The United States government's expressed desire is not to maintain these migrants for an indefinite period of time or against their will. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5176a.html">RICHARDSON ROY DALE V. USA<BR></A><BR> On the briefs were Steven H. </P> <P>Goldblatt. Was on the briefs </P> <P>for appellant.</P> <P> Somesha Ferdinand. With her on the brief were </P> <P>David W. Richardson was not seeking </P> <P>compensation for tortious acts or omissions of military per </P> <P>sonnel. In asserting that his claim was </P> <P>based on the defective or negligent manufacturing of the </P> <P>vaccine. We have no need to reach Mr. </P> <P>failing to grant him leave to amend his complaint after it was </P> <P>dismissed.</P> <P> I. While Roy Dale Richardson was on </P> <P>active duty with the U.S. Richard </P> <P>son was honorably discharged on May 16. At </P> <P>which time he was awarded Veteran's Administration disabili </P> <P>ty compensation. He alleges that his injuries are varied. He alleged that the United States was </P> <P> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/021812p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the Petition for Review on some claims and remand to the BIA on other claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 3 II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lukwago is a native and citizen of Uganda. When he was 15 years old. Lukwago stayed in a tent with other kidnapped children where they were guarded by armed rebels. Both adults and children were held captive at the camp. 342 (9th Cir. 1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-7160.html">RAYMOND G. MAXSON V. HERSHEL W. GOBER<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. The decision is affirmed.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053847p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Pentecostal Christian who is a citizen of Eritrea. We will grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. He was denied admission because he presented a false Italian passport that had been manufactured for him. Ghebrehiwot was born in Asmara. Is one of eight children. I don't have nothing. If I go home and I show them where I live and they find out that I fled to Sudan they will kill me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-2311.htm">02-2311 -- O'CONNOR V. U.S. -- 07/22/2003<BR></A><BR> That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2427.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. This is an action to enjoin the Department of Defense from carrying out the President's decision to close Loring Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1557.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for respondent. The background facts are not disputed. His visa status was changed to H 1B. Foroglou was served with an order to show cause why he should not be deported the beginning of deportation proceedings. Although he is opposed to any military draft. Foroglou is not opposed to war or fighting. His beliefs are only concerned with the fact that the draft is involuntary. All males between the ages of 18 and 50 are subject to military service for 24 months. An alternative civilian service option was instituted for conscientious objectors. It is about 12 18 months longer than combatant military service. Foroglou would probably not qualify for this alternative because he is not opposed to the use of weapons. The Greek consul responded that it could not issue Foroglou a passport until he had completed his military service and that Foroglou would have to deal with his local draft office (in Greece) about declaring himself a conscientious objector. The first hearing on Foroglou's deportation was held on December 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/001987P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is automatically substituted for former Commissioner Kenneth S. His date last insured (DLI) was March 31. Simmons' application was denied by the Commissioner initially and also upon reconsideration. Was granted a hearing in March 1995 before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ rendered a decision in which he found that Simmons was not under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/230D6ADD6872096188256F170080C759/$file/0136146.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Central among them is whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA). Moore's exclusive tort remedy based on the allegations in his complaint is a suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Ruled that it lacked subjectAll the facts recounted here are taken from the complaint. The defendants have never appeared in this suit. 1 13828 MOORE v. Moore's only claim giving rise to jurisdiction in this Court is a claim against the armed forces of the host nation itself. Because Moore's claim is against the United Kingdom. A. Analysis The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [1] The existence of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA is a question of law reviewed de novo. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is: a comprehensive statute containing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F674E8F6048714988256FFF007E8110/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Santiago's eight year enlistment in the Guard was due to expire on June 27. Shortly before that date his enlistment was extended by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="74"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022075.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. RTI is an over the road commercial motor carrier that transports goods in interstate commerce.2 In 1993. Because we are reviewing the dismissal of claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Our factual recitation is presented in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (i.e. 192 (4th Cir. 2002). 3 Paragraph 7.a. of the HAZMAT Agreement provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5347a.html">JAMES MUSENGO V. THOMAS WHITE<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032636np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mor Sene challenges the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals that he does not have a well founded fear of persecution at the hands of the security forces of Senegal due to their belief that he aided a rebel group. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We will deny Sene's petition for review. Our recitation of the facts will be limited to those facts necessary to our determination.1 In November 1999. Sene found that his family was not there and that several houses had been burned down. He was approached by a friend who told him that the military was looking to question him on his leaving the stadium to return to The facts of Sene's asylum petition are extensively detailed in an earlier opinion of this Court. He was charged as inadmissible because he was not in possession of a valid visa or other entry document. The BIA observed that the incidents of brutality to which Sene testified were due to actions taken by the MFDC and not the military. The BIA acknowledged that these reports reflected that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on briefs. Whose cases have been consolidated for purposes of appeal. Were arrested at various times between April and June of 2000 for trespassing onto Camp Garcí. A is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004247.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> COBLE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Ernest Coble was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina of attempting to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws. Are not present to an extraordinary degree so as to warrant departure. Who is retired and in his 70s. Is a former commercial airline pilot who served honorably in the military in two wars. Was an invalid document sent to Coble by Leroy Schweitzer. The warrant was made payable jointly to Coble and the IRS.1 After the IRS Schweitzer had sent these warrants. Which have no financial value. Coble would have received a $264. Shanks informed Coble that the warrant was worthless. Coble insisted that the warrant was valid and that he continued to expect the IRS to refund his money. Attached to the letter was a copy of a previous deficiency notice. Coble was convicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) by attempting to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws.2 The Presentence Report (PSR) 2 Section 7212(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061739P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was assigned as a nurse to a unit trained to fight subversives and narcotraffickers. For security purposes each member of the unit was known only by code name. When he was off duty and driving home. He was forced into the back of the car. Flores Calderon and Vilchez Romani testified that they were living in fear. Flores Calderon and Vilchez Romani contend that there is substantial evidence they suffered past persecution and have a reasonable fear of future persecution because of his military career and the Peruvian government's inability to control the activities of traffickers and guerrillas. A. This court must determine whether the denial of asylum is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-9135.opa.html">BURRELL V. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Burrell v. The case was one involving an employment decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/994334P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Special Agent Douglas Moore was the only identified individual defendant. I. Ordnance is a manufacturer and distributor of explosive devices. The first is by export to foreign countries or foreign companies. The second is pursuant to Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. He had told ATF agents on several occasions that his business was over regulated and that ATF should not have jurisdiction over its activities. ATF does not have authority. To regulate sales to foreign governments when they are made under contracts with the United States military. It called them </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1884.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacNichol</U> was on brief. Social Security Administration were on brief. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/831E88F96646A8FE88256C09005AE7D7/$file/0071638.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A military base sat one kilometer from his auto shop and many of Mejia's customers were high ranking military officers. Carmon retorted that he had observed how busy Mejia's shop was and that Mejia had a lot of income. Whom Mejia knew was a drug salesman for the NPA. Mejia identified to the military members of the NPA who were arrested in the raid. Mejia's name was on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2271.htm">97-2271 -- BACKMAN V. U.S. -- 07/23/1998<BR></A><BR> That her chest pain was caused by a virus and sent her home with pain medication. During the next five days she was treated at the emergency room several times. Backman was a nurse at the Shiprock Indian Hospital. An agency of the Department of Health and Human Services is. Commissioned officers of the PHS are entitled to many of the same statutory rights. Are subject to discipline for failing to follow orders. Backman was entitled to free medical care at any facility of any uniformed service. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non moving party and will uphold the decision only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>Aramburu v. Backman's treatment at Shiprock Hospital was incident to her active duty in the PHS. Then Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the <u>Feres</u> doctrine. <p> We have consistently applied the <u>Feres</u> doctrine to bar medical malpractice claims involving commissioned members of the uniformed services. <u>Quintana v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/02-3016.htm">02-3016 -- U.S. V. DENNY -- 10/16/2002<BR></A><BR> This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument will not materially assist the disposition of this appeal. <u>See</u> Fed. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> The defendant Opal Denny appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs on a federal military reservation at Fort Riley. Denny argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and (2) the district court abused its discretion in admitting a military police officer's testimony that. Denny was intoxicated. We are not persuaded by Ms. The case was tried before a magistrate judge. <p> The evidence presented at trial indicated that. The truck was moving at thirty to thirty five miles per hour. Even though the speed limit was fifty miles per hour. Determined that the registration was current. Was alone in the truck. Her speech was slow and slurred. Denny was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/951062P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nyonzele concedes that he is deportable but contends that he is entitled to discretionary relief in the form of (1) a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) of the joint petition requirement for seeking permanent resident status. Nyonzele and his wife were required to file a joint petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and appear together for a personal interview approximately two years after the date when he obtained the conditional status. This waiver would have allowed Nyonzele to seek permanent resident status without fulfilling the joint petition requirement if. He was not entitled to a hardship waiver of the joint petition requirement because he failed to demonstrate a good faith qualifying marriage. fear of The BIA also determined that crediting Nyonzele's testimony persecution. DISCUSSION This court has jurisdiction to review </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-9135.opa.html">BURRELL V. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Burrell v. The case was one involving an employment decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BFF2CFAE79835FD88256FE7005BEA8C/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></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-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2224.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Brown was on brief for appellee. By the Navy because it was a main access to the base. There was no sidewalk. The shoulder was uneven and sloping. So that it was customary to walk on the road. Plaintiff was with a group. All were on the right side. Who said that plaintiff was in the middle of the road. The court found that plaintiff was on the far right.1 Wherever 1. While the issue is not before us. The court also rejected the Navy's JAGMAN investigation findings of gross negligence because of intoxication and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3089_059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. The path the plaintiffs are pursuing is. Was a member of the junta and was Nigeria's head of state for the last year of the junta's reign. Alleging that he was behind the atrocities. The specific issue which gives rise to this interlocutory appeal is the decision that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA). Does not apply to individuals and thus General Abubakar is not immune from suit. That General Abubakar is entitled to common law immunity for the year that he was head of state. The situation in Nigeria at the time of these events was unstable. A number of military rulers were overthrown. A presidential election was held. The highest governmental body was the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC). It was composed of military officials No. 03 3089 3 and a few civilians. Whoever was the current military ruler was the chairman of the PRC. Plaintiff Hafsat Abiola is the daughter of Nigerian prodemocracy activists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3138.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul St. Gintaras Dambrava ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5176a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs were Steven H. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were David W. Richardson was not seeking compensation for tortious acts or omissions of military per sonnel. In asserting that his claim was based on the defective or negligent manufacturing of the vaccine. We have no need to reach Mr. Richardson's argument that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to grant him leave to amend his complaint after it was dismissed. While Roy Dale Richardson was on active duty with the U.S. Richard son was honorably discharged on May 16. At which time he was awarded Veteran's Administration disabili ty compensation. He alleges that his injuries are varied. He alleged that the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061688P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 Mouawad's asylum application was untimely and that he did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. A. Factual Background Mouawad was the sole witness at the hearing. Mouawad is a Lebanese Christian who grew up during Lebanon's war torn 1980s. Unarmed civilians he believed were members of Hizballah. He believed these men sometimes followed him while he was driving. The military also undertook an investigation into whether Mouawad was giving information to Hizballah and threatened to punish him by extending his mandatory term of service. A neighbor and friend of Mouawad who was engaged in some manner of covert employment. Mouawad immediately feared that the perpetrators were from Hizballah and that his own life might be at risk. He could see there were several men outside. They told her they sought Mouawad because they knew he was Daou's friend. They also said they knew Mouawad was present because his car was parked outside the apartment building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031338p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is the IJ's decision that we review. No mean task here because the IJ's opinion is cursory. We understand the IJ to have concluded that Berishaj's testimony regarding past persecution was not credible. Country conditions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which embraced Montenegro at the time of the IJ's decision) had changed such that Berishaj could no longer have a well founded fear of future persecution. That Berishaj's CAT claim failed because there was no objective evidence that a return to Montenegro would expose him to torture. The IJ misapplied the law in concluding that changed conditions in Montenegro have obviated any persecution claim that Berishaj might once have had. The burden of showing changed country conditions is on the government. We will therefore grant the petition for review of the decision insofar as it rejected Berishaj's asylum claim. We will deny the petition for review of the IJ's CAT decision. As we will explain in greater detail. In many cases in which country conditions are at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Which held that his employer does not owe him payment for 27 holidays which occurred while he was on leave without pay to serve on active duty in the U.S. Tully was absent from his position with his employer. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5294a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3069.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Kitts claims the Agency's decision is in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Kitts did not disclose that he was still on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B67C07DCC082AC598825701A007626F4/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212357.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Francis Crawford and Joe Hudgens were piloting a United States Army helicopte r on a M edivac m ission on May 1 . A c ompo nent of th e structur al assemb ly by wh ich the he licopter's tail rotor blade is attached to the pilot's carriage.1 An external skin covers the structural frame of which the fin spar is part. The investigating authorities concluded that the rupture was caused by a crack that originated at a rivet hole near the base of the fin spar. D yncorp was to maintain Army aircraft loc ated at the b ase. The publications contemplated by the contract have been en tered in th e record in the for m of ins pection c hecklists a nd man uals providing instructions for the maintenance and repair of UH 1 aircraft. Exhibits 1 3.2 One checklist identifies a series of inspections to be completed every day a helicopter is flown. All citations to the record will. The Court has satisfied itself that the evidentiary materials discussed in the text of this opinion were in all instances filed. Operators were to inspect the modified fin spar for cracks at least once during each subsequent eight hours of flight time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971260.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Stating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2279_052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brock ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043467p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the BIA did not explain its rationale for denying Konan's claim that he was persecuted due to membership in a particular social group (his status as the son of a military police officer). There is. We will grant the petition for review. I. Facts Konan was born in Bouake. He is a Catholic. His father was an officer in the Gendarmerie. All of which is documented in the record. Gbagbo was then declared the winner of the election. That result was contested by followers of Alassane Dramane Ouattara. Were allied against Ouattara supporters. Local elections were held without incident. A government of national unity was formed. Bouake is the location of the N'Gattakro Gendarmerie camp where Konan lived. Guéi was killed. There were also killings or attempted killings of other political leaders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-7093a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Thomas C. With him on the brief was Gaela K. Americable argues that the contract is void because it violates a statutory prohibition of contingent fee arrangements for the procurement of government ser vices. That Keefe is barred from bringing this suit by the District of Columbia's three year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims. The district court ruled that some of Keefe's claims were not time barred. We disagree that the contract is invalid as a matter of law. Paragraph 4 of the letter agreement states in relevant part: In the event that [Americable is] awarded a contract to install a CATV system on a U.S. Government installation 1 The first agreement between the parties was executed on September 24. We will refer only to the more recent agree ment. In the event the Government Installation is closed or [Am ericable] ceases to provide services to said Government Installation [Americable's] obligation to pay The Keefe Company shall cease. Keefe was to receive 2 percent of the gross sale price. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5165.html">ROBERT F. CHRISTIAN, II, ET AL, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>William A. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1180.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Claiming that the IJ erred in concluding that they are ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Background</STRONG></P> <P>Juan Alicio Samayoa Cabrera is a fifty four year old man from the Quiche region of Guatemala. His claims for asylum are based on his mistreatment at the hands of guerilla fighters in Guatemala from 1982 to 1992. His case was finally heard by an Immigration Judge on February 4. The oral decision rendered on that date was not in his favor. When his car was stopped by a group of guerillas who tied him up. Samayoa was promoted to military commissioner. The threats were addressed to him by name. Which she was able to deactivate before it detonated. Samayoa was falsely accused of kidnapping. He was told afterwards that the plan had been for someone to kill him while he was in jail. </P> <P>In 1991. Samayoa's property while he was walking to milk his cows. He was wounded in the face and was immediately surrounded by about eight armed men. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061688P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Mouawad's asylum application was untimely and that he did not meet his burden of proving eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. A. Factual Background Mouawad was the sole witness at the hearing. Mouawad is a Lebanese Christian who grew up during Lebanon's war torn 1980s. Unarmed civilians he believed were members of Hizballah. He believed these men sometimes followed him while he was driving. The military also undertook an investigation into whether Mouawad was giving information to Hizballah and threatened to punish him by extending his mandatory term of service. A neighbor and friend of Mouawad who was engaged in some manner of covert employment. Mouawad immediately feared that the perpetrators were from Hizballah and that his own life might be at risk. He could see there were several men outside. They told her they sought Mouawad because they knew he was Daou's friend. They also said they knew Mouawad was present because his car was parked outside the apartment building. She was seeking annulment of that marriage at the time of Mouawad's hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-9226.man.html">STANDARD V. A.B.E.L. SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 97-9226)<BR></A><BR> Five of whom were dismissed by the district court. Contending that Standard was not considered for a promotion and was later terminated for legitimate. Nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. Inc. is a business engaged in the production and sale of decorative architectural pieces. These pieces are produced by casting them from molds. The manufacturing process is performed by two different departments: the tooling department and the production department. The tooling department is responsible for crafting the molds that the production department uses to make the finished product. The production of these molds requires a far greater level of skill than is required to cast the finished pieces. Some of the molds are made from scratch. Others are made by altering or combining pre existing molds in a process known as mold setup.</P> <P> Plaster Concepts leases most of its employees from A.B.E.L. Standard was such a leased employee. Leased employees are interviewed and selected by Plaster Concepts. While A.B.E.L. is responsible for handling payroll. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTU0Nzlfc28ucGRm/05-5479_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5009.html">SHEWFELT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-9226.man.html">STANDARD V. A.B.E.L. SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 97-9226)<BR></A><BR> Five of whom were dismissed by the district court. Contending that Standard was not considered for a promotion and was later terminated for legitimate. Nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual. Inc. is a business engaged in the production and sale of decorative architectural pieces. These pieces are produced by casting them from molds. The manufacturing process is performed by two different departments: the tooling department and the production department. The tooling department is responsible for crafting the molds that the production department uses to make the finished product. The production of these molds requires a far greater level of skill than is required to cast the finished pieces. Some of the molds are made from scratch. Others are made by altering or combining pre existing molds in a process known as mold setup.</P> <P> Plaster Concepts leases most of its employees from A.B.E.L. Standard was such a leased employee. Leased employees are interviewed and selected by Plaster Concepts. While A.B.E.L. is responsible for handling payroll. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2286_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His wife and daughter have filed claims that depend on his. Musabelliu contends that he was persecuted (and remains at risk of persecution) because of his political opinions. While Serbian forces were removing ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and soldiers under his command were posted at the border. Musabelliu soon was promoted to general. Hajdaraga was removed from the defense portfolio on July 7. (He is not in office today. A new cabinet was formed that September with Sali Berisha of the Democratic Party as Prime Minister.). Musabelliu suspects that Hajdaraga (though out of office) had a hand in his dismissal (which the military services justified on the ground that 30 years is enough). Musabelliu likewise suspects that Hajdaraga was behind an incident during January 2001: two persons fired at a military convoy in which Musabelliu was riding. He was shot in the arm during April 2001 while returning from a visit to the prosecutor's office and maintains that all those who have opposed Hajdaraga must flee Albania if they are to remain safe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0036p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the decision of the Tennessee courts to allow prior testimony of a witness deemed unavailable for trial was neither </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2333.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where she is a citizen. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. I. BACKGROUND Ghidey Tesfu was born in Ethiopia in 1952 and is a citizen of Eritrea. Due to a well founded fear that she would be persecuted for her religious beliefs if forced to return to Eritrea.1 Tesfu bases her asylum and withholding of deportation claims on her fear that she will be persecuted in Eritrea for resisting military service on account of her religious beliefs. She is statutorily ineligible because she had not been in the United States for longer than one year when she received the Notice to Appear. Were insufficient to qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ found that Tesfu had suffered no incidents of past persecution and that her fear of future persecution was based almost entirely on her fear that she would be conscripted into military service if deported to Eritrea. Although the State Department report indicated that women between the ages of 18 and 40 are eligible for military service in Eritrea. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062270np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of the Board of 1 Immigration Appeals ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2057.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. We hold that notice was adequate for the purposes of the particular ESA claim on appeal here. The ESA directs federal agencies to insure that agency action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-4077_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the Orejuelas have shown that they are members of a persecuted social group. I Internal conflict and violence that is both political and criminal continue to challenge Colombian society. FARC is a leftist guerrilla group that originally was established to serve as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. Over 300 mayors . . . have received direct threats. Many have gone into hiding or conduct No. 03 4077 3 their office from different municipalities. The FARC have issued various statements indicating that all departmental and municipal authorities in the country are targeted. A total of sixty mayors (that is to say. One per month on average) have been killed in Colombia during the past five years. The military and civilian forces of Colombia have proven unwilling and unable to control FARC. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3229.html">LARRY D. STARKEY V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were</p> <u> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 2007). (1) Because he is proceeding pro se. He alleges </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/95-8313.opa.html">POWELL V. POWELL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Powell v. Who is Secretary of the Navy. Contending that the FSPA is unconstitutional as applied to him. Holding that the FSPA is not unconstitutional as applied to him. That he was barred from bringing his action under principles of res judicata. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Thomas J. With her on the brief were Frank W. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for amici curiae Maxxam. What if an appointee resigns or dies while the Senate is in session? A dispute about the meaning of the Vacancies Act is at the center of this case. The orders they signed are therefore null and void. Extensions of time were sought and opposed. Motions and memoranda were exchanged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D71BAC8F133CA78388256E5A00707A85/$file/9870828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In 1996 Naseem Salman Al Harbi ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043094p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruslan Ivanovich Ilchuk ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3319.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Carell was formerly employed as a civilian technician with the Oregon Army National Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6EED38988019CC8088256B490062FC1E/$file/0035672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Leisek was a full time employee of Brightwood from December 10. He was also a member of the Oregon National Guard (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/95-8313.opa.html">POWELL V. POWELL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Powell v. Who is Secretary of the Navy. Contending that the FSPA is unconstitutional as applied to him. Holding that the FSPA is not unconstitutional as applied to him. That he was barred from bringing his action under principles of res judicata. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/996079P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these appeals from the final orders of the bankruptcy court. Was an Air Force pilot and officer for many years. He was married to Sandra Vandiver. Finding that the original California divorce court had made a final adjudication with respect to Vandiver's claim and that Vandiver's suit was barred by res judicata. Holding that no adjudication of Vandiver's claim had occurred in the California divorce proceeding and that Vandiver's lawsuit was not barred by res judicata. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the prior rulings by the Arkansas Court of Appeals were the law of the case and that the trial court erred in dismissing Vandiver's lawsuit and in failing to award Vandiver 37.28 percent of the Debtor's military pension benefits. The Debtor was in good financial shape. The only other significant debt the Debtor had was a home mortgage loan guaranteed by the Veteran's Administration. Shortly after the petition was filed. The automatic stay was lifted so that any remaining issues regarding the liquidation of Vandiver's claim could be resolved in state court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-5347a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Roscoe C. I Musengo is currently a major in the United States Army Reserve. He was a captain on active duty. We have recently described in detail the officer rating system em ployed by the Army at the time of Musengo's evaluation. We therefore sketch it only briefly here.1 An OER is used to evaluate an officer's performance and career potential. The first is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/003794P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Discovering retrospectively the Air Force&s failure to grant him the sequence of promotions to which he believed he was entitled. Concluding he had not shown either that he was eligible for an earlier promotion or that he had been placed in the wrong </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002202.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He returned to work in February 1998 with light duty restrictions and in April 1998 was placed in a position in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612537.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was born and raised in Monroe County. Some of his service was in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. All of it was honorable. His superior officers used superlatives to describe him and his dedication to the missions he was assigned. It was not a happy time for him. While he was in Iraq. When he returned home his father was dying. He was depressed. Michael was a big time cocaine distributor. It was typical drug dealer conduct. Patrick Lett was atypical. Because he was a drug dealer with a conscience. That disease is addiction. Was an outstanding soldier. Dedicated to the welfare of his men and to 3 accomplishing whatever mission he was given. Lett may have thought that he had left his past behind him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D798367323A8D3E88256A0A006280CF/$file/9870828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: In 1996 Naseem Salman Al Harbi ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051315np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bars suits by service members for injuries that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Bryant G. Of counsel on the brief were David R. Because the Veterans Court did not err in its determination that a veteran's willful misconduct will prevent a finding of service connection and that DIC is only available where there is a service connected death or compensable disability. Myore is the widow of a Marine who died while on active duty. Myore died from a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head while he was playing Russian roulette. DIC is a monthly payment made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11FE0017E83FC1CF88256FEA000AE1A4/$file/0371391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The immigration judge found Nuru to be a credible witness but denied him relief on the grounds that he had not suffered past persecution as a result of his political opinion and that he would not be tortured if he were returned to Eritrea. The BIA adopted these findings and further found that Nuru's punishment by the Eritrean military was not disproportionately harsh and that he had not pre 4456 NURU v. Nuru argues that it is more probable than not that he will be tortured if he is returned to Eritrea. That he has a well founded fear that he will be similarly persecuted in the future. That he is eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ukashu Nuru is married to a permanent resident of the United States and has a U.S. citizen son. When the Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/01-3209.htm">01-3209 -- U.S. V. SHERWIN -- 11/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Military police officers Thomas Duckworth and Timothy Wilson were on patrol at the Fort Riley Military Installation. The suspect vehicle was eventually stopped by Riley County Police Officer Kevin Baker on Kansas Highway 18 between the towns of Ogden and Manhattan. Was arrested. Sherwin was restrained and transported to the Riley County Jail. Police records revealed that Sherwin's driver's license had been revoked due to his conviction as a habitual violator under Kansas traffic laws. <p> Sherwin was charged the next day in federal district court with one count of assaulting federal officers. While they were engaged in. Sherwin was indicted on a single. A superseding indictment was filed charging Sherwin with three counts: Count 1 remained the same and charged Sherwin with assaulting federal officers (Lanaux and Beamer). Sherwin was acquitted on Counts 1 and 3 of the superseding indictment. Was found guilty on Count 2. Was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> <em>Applicability of U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1197a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Rheba Rutkowski. With him on the brief were Peter D. Chief Judge: Petitioners are eight men detained at the Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay. Each petitioner seeks review of the determination by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT or Tribunal) that he is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5074.html">SMALL V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5045.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. He was later selected to receive an NROTC scholarship that allowed him to complete a college degree program and be commissioned as a Naval officer in 1993. He was eventually diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and sleep apnea. He was placed on limited duty status. Gant's medical condition in order to determine if he was fit for duty. Gant was not fit for further military duty. Before the formal hearing was held he changed his mind and waived his right to a hearing. Gant was counseled by a disability evaluation counselor. Gant was honorably discharged and was given approximately $62. He had waived his right to contest the finding that he was unfit for duty and the 10 percent disability rating. Gant's first claim of error is that the trial court should have ruled in his favor on the merits of his wrongful discharge claim because the government did not challenge the court's jurisdiction over that claim. He appears to argue that the government's failure to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims should be taken as an admission that he was wrongfully discharged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5045r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Armando A. He was later selected to receive a Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship that allowed him to complete a college degree program and be commissioned as a Naval officer in 1993. He was eventually diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and sleep apnea. He was placed on limited duty status. Gant's medical condition in order to determine if he was fit for duty. Gant was not fit for further military duty. Before the formal hearing was held he changed his mind and waived his right to a hearing. Gant was counseled by a disability evaluation counselor. Gant was honorably discharged and was given approximately $62. He had waived his right to contest both the finding that he was unfit for duty and the 10 percent disability rating. Gant's first claim of error is that the trial court should have ruled in his favor on the merits of his wrongful discharge claim because the government did not challenge the court's jurisdiction over that claim. He appears to argue that the government's failure to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims should be taken as an admission that he was wrongfully discharged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971876.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who was four months pregnant. She returned to the medical facility the next day and was seen by a civilian doctor participating in the Civilian Health and Medical Program of Uniformed Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph O. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were David M. Was on the brief for amicus curiae The Government of the Republic of Iceland. With him on the brief was Gary C. L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C72B8570A5CAE2CA88256BE6004EB1F1/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. The Oil Companies' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Is also DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous waste associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCDEC0F7A124EC4A88256B5D005D0555/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous wastes associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ1NTlfc28ucGRm/04-4559_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07F5FC12B8A98D6988256D35005181DB/$file/0135419.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person *Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-5329a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3339.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both have found that Useinovic is ineligible for asylum because he can show neither past persecution nor a wellfounded fear of future persecution. No. 01 3339 Tahir Useinovic is a 41 year old Albanian Muslim native of the city of Bar. Useinovic applied for asylum to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and was interviewed by the INS on April 9. Useinovic claimed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-3038.html">KISZKA V. OPM<BR></A><BR> For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Melanie Watson</u>. Kiszka does not dispute that he was terminated from MANG and that he neither requested nor was given a leave of absence.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Shortly after enrolling in AGR. At which time he was re appointed as a civilian technician in MANG.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>MANG characterized his 1994 appointment as a reemployment pursuant to the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act ( VRRA ). 966 in interim annuity payments that it had made while his application was under consideration.</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>OPM denied Mr. Kiszka s service in AGR was not creditable toward his retirement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>According to 5 U.S.C. § 8331(13). Creditable military service does not include service in the National Guard except when ordered to active duty in the service of the United States or full time National Guard duty . . . if such service interrupts creditable civilian service under this subchapter and is followed by reemployment in accordance with chapter 43 of title 38. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>OPM determined that Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1907_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the USERRA is not retroactive to the time period concerning Mr. Bowlds was inducted into the United States Army in January of 1967 and was discharged from active military service in January of 1969. Subsequent retirement are at issue: first. Bowlds was on disability retirement. That statute was also in 4 No. 04 1907 applicable to Mr. Summary judgment is properly granted when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3646A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His wife's claim for asylum is derivative from his. Miljkovic was born in Croatia. Which at the time was part of Yugoslavia. Although both his parents were originally from Serbia and moved back to Serbia and he grew up 2 No. 03 3646 there. He claims without contradiction to be perceived by Serbians to be Croatian because he was born in Croatia and speaks Serbo Croatian with a Croatian accent. In retaliation he was demoted by his employer. Later was fired. Draft notices were sent only to persons who were either opposed to the Milosevic regime or had been born in a part of Yugoslavia other than Serbia. He presented evidence from a human rights group and a qualified expert on Yugoslavia that the regime had made a practice of dealing with its opponents by sending them to fight against Croatia and that members of ethnic groups to which Serbia (the dominant entity in Yugoslavia) was hostile. Were targeted for hazardous military duties. The issue was not whether Miljkovic would have been punished with disproportionate severity had he defied the draft notice and been arrested for evading military service. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-2306.htm">02-2306 -- LEE V. U.S. AIR FORCE -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR> The suit was brought by ranchers and livestock raising associations (referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2015_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Washington was convicted on both counts and the district court sentenced him to 420 months' imprisonment. Were police informants who made controlled buys from Washington. The transaction was not recorded or charged in the superseding indictment. Daryle entered the apartment and 1 Daryle Washington and defendant Cedric Washington are not related. We will refer to Daryle Washington as Daryle. The officers advised him that they knew that he was distributing crack cocaine and that they had conducted controlled purchases from him. The district court concluded that Washington was a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. After determining that his offense level under § 4B1.1 was 37. His criminal history category was VI. The resulting sentencing range was 360 months to life imprisonment. Judicial Bias Washington's first argument is that the district court improperly used its inquiry power during the two day trial to bolster the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Created a tag team effect between the judge and prosecution that could not have been lost on the jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5248a.html">FRIZELLE MICHAEL K. V. SLATER, RODNEY E.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="68"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5157.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition Is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. $345.00 was withheld each month from his normal. The withheld funds were meant for: (1) the purchase of U.S. The six year limitations period </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></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-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A95F733B757E056888257020006EA07B/$file/0415031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10506.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974639.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The basis for the search was evidence of abuse of McLeod obtained during an interview and physical examination of him by Army personnel after he complained to his schoolteacher that he had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/99-1476a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were David M. Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1964_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Abdelhadi Hor was ordered removed from the United States after his claim of asylum was denied. On the ground that the probability that he could persuade the merits panel to reverse the order of removal was low. Is authorized to reexamine a ruling made by a motions panel. Hor is an Algerian with a technical background who before coming to the United States on a visitor's visa in 2000 was the chief information officer for a large governmentowned manufacturer. He was also an active member of the FLN. In March of 2000 he was stopped at a roadblock set up by members of GIA (Groupe islamique armé). The military wing of the radical Islamic movement that is engaged in what amounts to a civil war with the Algerian government. Hor was ordered to furnish the organization with a list of active members of the FLN and with the security plan of his employer. He was released after promising to comply. As Hor was. Hor was stopped at another GIA roadblock. Armed men ordered him to lie down on the ground and told him they were going to execute him on the spot in retaliation for his having failed to supply the GIA with the promised information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10528.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55A5ADF35C63BA7888256EB7005960E4/$file/0274208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where no charges are brought. Facts Alexandru Dinu is a native and citizen of Romania. When Dinu was twenty one. He was assigned to a unit that specialized in protecting important targets from terrorist attacks. Dinu was arrested and taken to the local police station. He was never stationed in Craiova City during his military service but had spent the entire time in Tîrgu Jiu. He was denied an attorney. Dinu was beaten and threatened. The beating was so severe as to leave a scar on his face. Where he was admitted as a visitor. Dinu was required to show that he is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B0D789626D52E6288256F32007C4BAD/$file/0216585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Fish and Wildlife Service have violated numerous environmental and conservation oriented statutes. Background Fort Baker ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1157p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arrested before departing. He was unsuccessful. None of this is disputed. This court applies plenary review to a district court's determination whether a confession was given voluntarily. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/024099np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will deny the petition for review. He was placed in removal proceedings. Claimed that he was eligible for asylum. Qorraj was a member of the army since 1982. He was a chief of a battalion in the army holding the rank of captain and was 37 years old. He was the only person who testified at the hearing. At a time when Albania was in domestic upheaval. A secret service officer who was a very close relative to a deputy of the Democratic Party the party in power at the time threatened him that. While Qorraj was carrying out a major's order to protect the office of the mayor of Tirane. He was given orders to shoot to kill anyone approaching either the mayor's office or the ministry of education. Qorraj was arrested by army policemen and was imprisoned for five days because his superiors deemed him. Qorraj believed that he was put on leave as a first step to discharging him from the army. Qorraj's battalion was ordered to go from its permanent location in Tirane to Vlora </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10528.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-7054.html">YOUNG V. GOBER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024226p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether Breyer. Was a voluntary member of the Nazi military unit. The District Court found that he was not. Consequently issued a declaratory judgment that Breyer was a United States citizen. We will affirm.1 I. The facts of this case have been extensively discussed elsewhere. The District Court's findings of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10506.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031766p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/96-3007.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. HAMPSHIRE<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced to two years' probation and ordered to pay $38. (2) the state court order upon which his federal conviction is predicated violates his rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0579n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Petitioner Niang is a citizen and native of Mauritania applying for asylum in the United States. Niang is a Black Mauritanian. In 1989 he was arrested by White Moors who came to his house. Told him that he was Senegalese and not Mauritanian. He was taken to a camp for four months. After which he was deported to Senegal. She is currently living in Dakar. His wife had documentation in her possession showing that she was a refugee in Senegal. It is undisputed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C02/02-60288.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C02/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-7055.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></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-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1869.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/04-9507.htm">04-9507 -- ELZOUR V. ASHCROFT -- 08/17/2004<BR></A><BR> Petitioner claims that he was subjected to a history of persecution at the hands of Syrian authorities and that he is entitled to asylum in the United States and/or restriction on removal to Syria. <p> The Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/04-3077.htm">04-3077 -- TOOTLE V. DUNAVAN -- 07/07/2004<BR></A><BR> The files were removed from Plaintiff's cell during the course of a move to a new facility. Defendants were retaliating against him for filing civil actions and pursuing habeas relief. Held that Plaintiff's claims for damages were barred by the <em>Feres </em>doctrine. That his claims for injunctive relief were moot because he had been released from custody by the time the matter was decided. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his damages claims and the denial of his request to file electronically. <strong> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>A dismissal under <em>Feres</em> is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). <em>See Ricks v. We therefore review the dismissal de novo. <em>Id. </em>We are mindful that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-7100.htm">03-7100 -- U.S. V. CLARK -- 04/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Several vehicles were thrown from the bridge and fourteen people died. Defendant was not a member of the military at that time. Nevertheless he told those present that he was in charge and coordinated a review of items recovered from the river. Including the victims' personal effects. <p> These misrepresentations were but the beginning of the false statements that he would make about his military status in connection with the bridge collapse. After a briefcase belonging to an actual Army captain was recovered from the river. By representing that he was an Army captain and assuring motel management that other government officials would pay the tab. By telling store employees that he was an Army captain who needed the supplies for the rescue effort. He failed to return the truck as promised. <p> Defendant was detained by police in Ontario. He was driving the stolen pickup and had a rifle in a case behind the front seat. 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility for his conduct. <p> There were four addendums to the PSR. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60288.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7156.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Cayat alleged that his service connected disability began in 1953 while he was serving in Korea. The Veterans Affairs regional office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974086.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Tate was arrested on the Marine Corps military base in Quantico. Because there is no federal statute covering this offense. Tate was charged under the Assimilated Crimes Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3178.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul St. Godbout </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Meyer & Soloman were on brief for Conservation Law Foundation. P.A. were on brief for Town of Newington. Were on brief for the federal parties. Were on brief for State of New Hampshire and Pease Development Authority. Senior District Judge. whether defendants have complied with various federal environmental laws that apply to the conversion of land on Pease Air Force Base (Pease) in New Hampshire to civilian use incident to the base's closure. Several other interested parties have intervened and. Plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their CAA claims and the denial of injunctive relief. The federal defendants have cross appealed from the finding that they violated CERCLA. Have not appealed the district court's order directing them to prepare a Supplemental FEIS. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Also before us are petitions filed by CLF and Newington to review an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approving PDA's airport development plan. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. app. 1486(a) and deny the petitions with respect to the CAA claim and retain jurisdiction of the NEPA claim pending completion of the Supplemental FEIS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0DC97BD5111E33578825730C004BD410/$file/0499010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. The word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4309.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Was killed in an accident during a military training operation at Camp Pendleton. He was fatally wounded when a participant mistakenly used live ammunition for the blanks that were intended for the exercise. The United States was substituted as a defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(1). Arguing that Jeremy's death </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-9522.htm">01-9522 -- KRASTEV V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 06/17/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We conclude that the Board erred in determining that the evidence of changed conditions was sufficient to rebut a presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution. The applicant has the burden to prove his or her statutory eligibility for asylum by establishing that he or she is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3126.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. That he was not entitled to credit under the Civil Service Retirement System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2005.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States. Caruso & Rodophele were on joint brief for appellees. This is an interlocutory appeal by the government under 18 U.S.C. 3731 contesting an evidentiary ruling made prior to trial in a criminal case. The defendants were two corporations Fiber Materials. Over two thirds of Fiber Materials' work is for 2 2 the U.S. military. One of the technologies in which Fiber Materials is expert relates to the hot isostatic press. The press is a complex piece of industrial equipment that contains an internal cavity and uses high pressure gas or liquid to subject materials to intense pressure and a furnace to produce extreme heat. Various goods and technologies are subject to different levels of export control for reasons of 3 3 foreign policy. Accessories and controls </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Roy & Cook was on brief. Allen & Snyder was on brief. These plans comprise what is familiarly known as the state retirement system. The key provisions of both plans are ordained by statute and both are administered under the aegis of the Board. 2 The law authorizing the MEP affords each of Rhode Island's thirty nine municipalities the option of deciding whether or not to participate. Its eligible employees are required to become members of the plan and must contribute six percent of salary until they have reached the maximum amount of service credit attainable. A qualified employee is entitled to a life annuity upon retirement in the amount of two percent of his or her final salary times the number of years of total creditable service (up to thirty seven and one half years). A person is eligible to retire with such a pension once he or she attains age fifty eight and has logged at least ten years of total creditable service. Under this formulation the only formulation that is germane to this case1 a municipal member's right to a pension vests when he or she meets both the age and years in service minima. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/022963P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeks judicial review of his claim that he should have been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. To set them aside if they are arbitrary. The facts are stated in our previous opinions. Chandler was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Army Air Corps. He was discharged in 1945. He was promoted to First Lieutenant in 1950. He claims that he should have been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel before retirement. Our review of the Board's decision is limited. Accept that interpretation if it is reasonable. Regardless of how we might have interpreted the statutes as an original matter. Is perhaps at its zenith when military matters are involved. The key to plaintiff's argument is that he should have been promoted from Second Lieutenant to First Lieutenant in August of 1947. His subsequent promotions would also have occurred earlier. He would have retired as a Lieutenant Colonel rather than a Major. Each nonunit officer of the Army Reserve who is found by the Secretary or any officer he designates to be qualified for promotion shall be promoted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1677.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is. Quinonez's civil rights claims for damages are nonjusticiable. Where we held that a 2 National Guard technician's civilian and military roles are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7383.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is
	OPINION/ORDER The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
	OPINION/ORDER Was fraud upon the court. I. Actions for fraud upon the court are so rare that this Court has not previously had the occasion to articulate a legal definition of the concept. The concept of fraud upon the court challenges the very principle upon which our judicial system is based: the finality of a judgment. (3) which 3 is directed at the court itself. That is directed to the `judicial machinery' itself. That is intentionally false. Or is in reckless disregard for the truth. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose. Although other United States Courts of Appeals have not articulated express elements of fraud upon the court as the Sixth Circuit did. Or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated. Will constitute a fraud on the court
	OPINION/ORDER This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Tavares was required to maintain membership as a reservist in the National Guard. He was separated from the National Guard. He was separated from his MAARNG civilian technician position two months later. Tavares's AGR service was not in fact creditable under the CSRS. Tavares did not meet the requirement in 5 U.S.C. § 8333(b) that he serve in a position subject to the CSRS for a total of at least one year out of the two years immediately prior to the separation on which his claim for an annuity was based. 04 3039 2 Mr. The administrative judge (
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. TACHA. Defendant Appellant Ron Alonzo Banks was convicted in the District Court of Wyoming of conspiracy to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. The individuals were later determined to be Mr. The apartment was leased in Ms. Who was equipped with a wireless transmitter and pre recorded funds. State agents applied for and were granted a
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	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 He also challenges the BIA's determination that he is ineligible to adjust his status to that of permanent resident as a derivative beneficiary of his parents' visa. The latter denial was based on a determination that Padash was not statutorily eligible for permanent residence because. Having turned twenty one before his visa was adjudicated. Padash was seventeen. His claim is based on two incidents of violence that occurred at his father's restaurant. When Padash told the customers that the item was unavailable. There was a police station across the street. Shortly after the fight Padash was born in India and resided with his parents in Poona. He obtained an Iranian passport because his grandparents were born there. 2 PADASH v. Although Padash was not present on that occasion. Padash testified that because the current regime in India is
	OPINION/ORDER The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
	97-1030 -- STACKS V. U.S. AIR FORCE -- 12/04/1997 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Erin Pacheco Stacks appeals from the district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.
	OPINION/ORDER The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the Feres doctrine bars suits by military personnel for injuries that
	GLOCK V. MOORE (11/10/1999, NO. 98-3425) 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). The facts surrounding Glock's arrest and trial have been developed extensively in 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.
	CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Circuit Judge. that lawyers have an absolute right. Is an associate justice of the Maine Superior Court. Berner was seated in the gallery of Judge Delahanty's courtroom. The button was approximately two inches in diameter and bore the words
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner argues that the IJ's decision to reject petitioner's asylum and withholding of removal claims was not based on substantial evidence and that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled by the record to grant her relief. Petitioner also argues that the IJ and BIA erred in not considering sua sponte whether petitioner was entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1995 and was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor. She applied for asylum largely on the basis of claims that she had been persecuted in Ukraine because she is a Jew. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (
	03-2254 -- BLUEHORSE V. DOMINGUEZ -- 08/03/2004 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Byron Bluehorse. A qualified Anglo female was then selected for the position. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. A plaintiff with a failure to promote claim is first required to establish a . He was a member of a protected class. He applied for and was qualified for the position. Despite being qualified he was rejected. After he was rejected. The position was filled or remained available. Amro v. Shifts the burden back to the plaintiff to proffer evidence that the employer's reason is pretextual.
	OPINION/ORDER When deportation proceedings were instituted against him. Finding that persecution and 2 Nos. 04 1600 & 04 2013 torture were unlikely. Hamid now claims not only that the IJ's decision was wrong. Where Hamid was born in 1966. Although Hamid was born in Qatar. He is not a Qatari citizen. Hamid was subject to mandatory service in the Syrian military. He was allowed to defer his service while pursuing higher education at Damascus University in Syria. He was arrested for participating in a scheme (which the record does not fully describe) to steal and to defraud. Was placed in deportation proceedings as an aggravated felon. Hamid conceded to the court that his crimes were aggravated felonies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (theft offense for which term of imprisonment is at least one year). That he was deportable. The fact that he is Palestinian (a disfavored group in Syria). El Hasan's affidavit was more comprehensive. El Hasan (who was in London) to testify by telephone at the hearing. He noted that Hamid had submitted evidence supporting his claim 1 (...continued) will not accept him because he is not a citizen.
	OPINION/ORDER 2007 is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6405. The Ministry argues that the Cubic judgment is not a blocked asset under TRIA because Executive Order 12. The reasoning in those cases is inapplicable here. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND Balliu is a native and citizen of Albania. Is one of the founders. The Party is an anti communist Albanian nationalist organization founded in roughly 1942. Balli Kombetar was initially organized as a military group with a political wing. Balliu's family is highly political and active in the Balli Kombetar Party. Who joined the Party when he was eighteen. Another great uncle of Balliu and Balliu's maternal grandfather were killed by communists in the 1940s. The rest of Balliu's family was interned in a village where they were treated like slaves. Who was active in anti socialist politics. Are also active 2 Balli Kombetar members. In 1992 the Communist Party in Albania was defeated by the Democratic Party in the national elections. Balliu believes he will be in danger if he returns to Albania. Partly because it is known that he is the future of the Balli Kombetar Party in his town. He argues that he will be persecuted or killed by members of the Socialist Party because many members of the Socialist Party were supportive of.
	OPINION/ORDER The case was adjudicated by The Honorable Ann D. Paisley's claims were made pursuant to the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act. 2 but the court concluded that he had waived whatever rights he may have had under the Act. Was granted. Which permitted reemployment The Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act was renumbered 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301 4307 (Supp. So are not applicable here. Although Paisley's complaint was filed on September 1. It refers to sections of the Act as they were numbered before October 1992. We also will refer to the pertinent sections under the numbering scheme as it existed before it was changed in 1992. We will forego our usual practice of citing United States Code dates parenthetically when citing sections of the Act as they were numbered before October 1992. 3 2 following a leave of absence for active duty service other than for training. Provided that the length of service was no longer than four years (with certain exceptions not relevant here). Notwithstanding that he was still on leave from the department. resigned from the police department.
	GARRAMONE V. ROMO Jeri Garramone was a reservist in the United States Army. When Garramone was sent overseas. While Garramone was still overseas. The two children were temporarily placed in a foster home. She was not represented by counsel at either hearing. Arguing that the district court erred in (1) finding that defendants Romo and Sanchez were not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to the procedural due process and SSCRA claims. Discussion We begin by evaluating Romo's and Sanchez's contention that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Garramone's procedural due process and SSCRA claims. Then we decide whether that right was clearly established such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that her conduct violated the right. Litigants have a presumed right to counsel when they could lose their physical liberty if they lose the litigation. In proceedings where litigants are not directly threatened by a loss of physical liberty. When another liberty interest is threatened. The private interest that will be affected by the official action.
	OPINION/ORDER
	ISIDRA M. TIZO V. OPM For respondent. With her on the brief were Robert D. Tizo is not eligible for a survivor annuity based upon the federal civil service of her late husband. Tizo did not die while in covered service and was not eligible for a retirement annuity. As a wiper for about six months. The term of the service appointment for each of those positions was one year or less. Tizo serve the full term of the appointment. There is no record of subsequent service after Mr. The Board found that each of those appointments was limited to one year or less and thus. Tizo was not eligible for a retirement annuity and that Ms. Tizo accordingly was not eligible for a survivor annuity. Act of Jan. 24.
	OPINION/ORDER Because of the threat of persecution he faces by the Bolivian government due to his prior 1 Puna Villanueva's asylum application is based on her husband's application. leadership role in a railroad union. Eventually reaching a position in which he was responsible for investigating railroad accidents. Different parties operate within the RFU and Bellido's rise to his leadership position was precipitated by the internal election of his party to the union leadership. He was responsible for resolving grievances between employees and between employees and the government. No charges were filed against him during his incarceration. Nor was he afforded a chance to speak for his freedom to a judge or to military officials. When he was finally released. An army captain warned Bellido that if he was found participating in protests again. Bellido was forced into hiding at a nearby railroad office for several days to avoid arrest. Bellido's family was not harmed during his absence. At that time he was married to Norma Velasco.
	RAFAEL ZAMOT V. MSPB For respondent. With her on the brief were Jeffrey Gauger and Michael Carney. Zamot was employed by the United States Postal Service as a Postal Police Officer. On March 26. Zamot was involved in an altercation with another postal worker in a locker room at work. The Postal Service removed Mr. Thus whether his case was within the Board s appellate jurisdiction. While Postal Service employees ordinarily do not fall within the Board s jurisdiction. Zamot requested additional time to gather the requisite evidence that he is a preference eligible veteran. In accordance with Mr. Zamot s representative stated that he obtained the letter from the Navy with great difficulty and that the Navy had informed him that Naval JAG was consulted and that this letter should suffice for his purpose of Preference Eligibility/Jurisdiction before the US MSPB. Mr.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Implicit in the grant of authority to review a final BIA order is the authority to review an order denying a motion to reopen the final order. 654 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review is abuse of discretion). Factual Summary Jalloh was born and raised in the Kono district of Sierra Leone. Is a member of the Fula2 tribe. Jalloh claims his deceased father was a diamond businessman and member of the All People's Congress. Jalloh claims his father was imprisoned for six months. Jalloh contends his first story was published in March 1995. Immediately after his story was published. Jalloh was then forced into a vehicle and taken with his hands tied and with a stick under his knees to an administrative court. Where he was detained for eight hours. I. 2 Alternate spellings include
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER When this case was initially submitted to this Court. United We have received answers to those questions and the parties' briefs in response to those answers. Are prepared to dispose of this case without further argument. They allege that Kris was permanently injured by negligent treatment he received at the Ellsworth Air Force Base Hospital. consortium. Twelve day old Kris Knowles was admitted to the Ellsworth Air Force Base Hospital on July 17. For treatment of a fever. improved over the next three days. it was only 95.3 degrees. 1989. Among those persons caring for Kris in the hospital were medical services specialists. These enlisted persons are roughly the equivalent It was the responsibility of the of civilian nurse's aides and are charged with tasks such as taking vital signs and providing patient services. which they did. medical services specialists on duty to take and record Kris's temperature. They were also to report any abnormally high or low The temperatures to the nursing staff or to the attending physician. this duty the night before Kris's discharge.
	OPINION/ORDER Melvin Clyde Collins II appeals his conviction on the ground that he was deprived of counsel at his competency hearing. The district court was presented with two issues: a motion to withdraw filed by Mr. Collins's competency and did not introduce available evidence that may have affected the competency determination. Collins was not represented by counsel at his competency hearing. Collins was charged with two counts of sexually abusing a minor under age sixteen and one count of sexually abusing a minor under age twelve. A motion requesting a psychological examination to determine whether he was competent to stand trial. Collins was evaluated by Bureau of Prisons psychologist. Collins's statement that he was diagnosed with these disorders in childhood. He most likely will be a difficult client with whom to work. After the evaluation was completed. L'Esperance was lying to him. The district court began the competency hearing by inquiring whether there was any issue as to competency in light of the competency evaluation submitted by Dr.
	OPINION/ORDER Was dancing with another person. Defendant appears to have had a history of stalking Rivera. The military police were notified and given a description of defendant and the car. Who was assigned to the front gate area of the base. Was radioed and advised of the assault and attempted escape. The outbound lane of Fort Buchanan then was blocked by a military police vehicle. Did not shoot at defendant because another officer was in his line of fire. Roate was not injured in the collision. Defendant successfully escaped the confines of the base but was apprehended later.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Constantine G. With him on the brief were David W. With him on the brief were E. The Union claims that: (1) the Mar Ad's decision was arbitrary and capricious. (3) s 9 of the Shipping Act is an unconsti tutional delegation of legislative authority. In all other respects we deny the petition: MEBA did not properly raise its Fifth Amendment argument and s 9 of the Shipping Act is not an unconstitu tional delegation of authority. 000 gross tons or more. (1) Applications for approval of Transfer to foreign regis try and flag ... of Documented Vessels or vessels the last documentation of which was under the laws of the United States and which are of 1. 000 gross tons or more will be evaluated in light of (i) The type. In its decision the MarAd canvassed the arguments put forth in the comments and determined that the following regulatory criteria were relevant to its decision: (1) the general condition of the vessels. Which are used to ship liquified natural gas. Are in good working condition. (2) The agency has previously found the Republic of the Marshall Islands to be an acceptable transferee. (3) The Department of Defense.
	OPINION/ORDER The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name
	OPINION/ORDER Any issuer that owns
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER CORRECTION MADE ON COVER SHEET *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. Circuit Judge: Stretching in front of the Fairfax County Government Center Complex is a large grassy mall. Surrounding the mall is the street which leads to the Government Center Complex. The entire mall is outdoors. Fairfax County (the
	03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004 Circuit Judge.
	UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The district court enhanced Holden's sentence after finding that the mine that he had possessed was a stolen. Holden disputes this characterization.<p> 1. <i>Section 2K2.1(b)(4)</i><p> <p> As to the district court's finding that the device was stolen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2186.htm">98-2186 -- U.S. V. STRAUS -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> He was subsequently sentenced to a term of 21 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. SDI was solely an insurance business. Most of whom were teachers who taught at the school. In 1991 the school was looking for a company to manage the investment fund. In May 1993 to confirm that the funds were still intact. It was returned for insufficient funds. ISB officials then contacted Straus and asked him where their money was. Straus answered that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A675AC0B66A8BC2188256F5E007E2C76/$file/0371198.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioners explained that they fear persecution if returned to Pakistan because their lives were threatened by the Muttahida Quami Movement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Avil‚s & Col¢n Morales LLP were on brief. Col¢n & Mart¡nez was on brief. We affirm on the alternative ground that the appellee was immune from suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Corkery was appointed to a civilian technician position in the Massachusetts Army National Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3148_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ye Mon Aung is a native and citizen of Burma who entered the United States in 2003 aboard a ship docking in Texas. A hearing was held. Although he was not a member. Aung was pleased to do so. The day that the rally was to take place. Military trucks surrounded them and the protestors were arrested. Aung was interrogated. He was very frightened. Aung was released and warned to stay away from political activities and associated people. Aung met some students in Thailand who were interested in the issue of forced labor in Burma. Aung's cousin was arrested by Burmese officials later that year. He believed it may have had something to do with the forced labor information that his cousin sent to him. The IJ found that Aung's testimony at the asylum hearing was not credible and that Aung did not have an objectively well founded fear of future persecution. The IJ noted that Aung was not politically active in any way after his final return to Burma in 2002 other than to exchange information with the students in Thailand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20EE6C12A493E2AA882572D400577C43/$file/0372384.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Having decided that our prior interpretation of the BIA's power under the INA was overly narrow. We overrule Molina Camacho and determine that we do have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision in such cases. GONZALES I Marjorie Lolong is an Indonesian woman of ethnic Chinese descent. She is also a Christian. When she was still a student in this country. The IJ held that Lolong was eligible for asylum. The BIA concluded that Lolong could not establish that her fear of future persecution in Indonesia was objectively reasonable because there was evidence that the Indonesian government had taken steps to bring militant Islamic groups which were largely responsible for the outbreaks of religious and ethnic violence under control. We have narrowly construed the BIA's authority under the INA both to enter an order of removal in the first instance. As is the case here. We noted that the BIA lacks statutory authority to enter orders of removal and held that any attempt by the BIA to do so was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/09/96-8081.htm">96-8081 -- HALLE V. U.S. -- 09/04/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant William W. Halle's action was barred by the statute of limitations. Halle's records was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. <p> We must consider. Halle's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/953917P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Andrews was a 17 year old Andrews was raped by Randy Fowler. Who was then a police officer for the North Sioux City Police Department. and had been drinking. She had recently graduated from high school and was preparing to enter basic training for the military. Police were called to the scene because of underage drinking and reports of several arguments at the party. Price was aware that the department had had Those officers had been trouble in the past with some officers fraternizing with and possibly even having sexual relations with minor females. officers had been hired. discharged before Price became chief of police and before any of Price's Price had. While Fowler was still on duty. Fowler offered to take Andrews home when his shift was over. taking Andrews home. He forced her to have sexual intercourse with him under threats that he would charge her with underage drinking and prevent her from being allowed into the military if she did not cooperate with his advances. of the assault. While Andrews was away at basic training. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-8150.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. HOLDEN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court enhanced Holden's sentence after finding that the mine that he had possessed was a stolen. Holden disputes this characterization.<p> 1. <i>Section 2K2.1(b)(4)</i><p> <p> As to the district court's finding that the device was stolen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1272.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. The IJ held that Petitioner was barred from being granted asylum by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) which stipulates that an alien is not a refugee for purposes of asylum if he has persecuted others on account of nationality or political opinion. Was commanded by Yoweri Museveni. Petitioner was placed in the mobile unit of the Fourth Division. Petitioner was involved in several regional conflicts in Uganda. Petitioner was imprisoned by the UPDF. Petitioner asserts that he was jailed for complaining about the UPDF's presence in the Congo. Petitioner was charged with planning to plot a coup against the UPDF. Kiyaga asserts that he was tortured while in prison. Kiyaga was allowed to escape. His application was denied. He held that asylum was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Or political opinion.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1979p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the reasons that follow we will grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 I. Senathirajah is a fifty one year old ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka who claims to have been tortured while detained by the Indian Peace Keeping Forces ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022288.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pfister ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5142.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. McGlohon asserts that he is entitled to compensation for wrongful discharge from the Army on July 11. That he is entitled to disability pay from the 1977 discharge. McGlohon was honorably discharged from the Army. The reason given for his discharge was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1722.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doyle</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Petitioners conceded that they were removable as charged and applied for asylum. Settenda claimed that he was a member of the Ugandan Internal Security Organization (ISO). Settenda claimed that he was threatened and that two attempts were made on his life as a result of his investigation. Was inconsistent and implausible on key points. Was not supported by the submitted documentary evidence. The IJ stated that she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/954181P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is explicitly authorized by a 1993 statute. Richenberg has not persuaded us that he has a substantial likelihood of That must be the standard when considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of a statute that was the product of lengthy public debate involving both Congress and the President. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1349.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was K. The '129 patent is directed to an underwater coupling device (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1937.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although Tolosa's mother is Eritrean. Her father is Oromo and so she and her siblings are considered Oromo. Have historically been politically marginalized. Tolosa's father continued in the military until he was forced to leave in 1986 or 1987. Tolosa testified that her father was forced out of the military because he is Oromo. He was again taken away for questioning. This time was detained for six months. He was not charged with a crime on either occasion and apparently did not tell his family why he was detained or how he was treated. Tolosa presumed that the reason the government monitored and detained her father was because he is Oromo. That the first time it happened she was knocked nearly unconscious and feared that she had been blinded. Until July 1998 when Tolosa's Eritrean mother was taken from their home and deported to Eritrea. At a time when many Ethiopian Eritreans were rounded up and deported. Several months after Tolosa's mother was deported. Who is Eritrean. Gabriel explained that the EPRDF was hostile towards Ethiopians who were suspected to be 4 No. 03 1937 Oromos and their desire for independence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1754_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sabrije Slakovi and Natasa Djedovi are citizens of Serbia and Montenegro (ED$4 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1430.htm">00-1430 -- U.S. V. PULLIN -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Danny Lee Pullin appeals his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury. He was arrested as he left the barracks area. Pullin was taken to a holding area where he was left alone until 5:00 the following morning. At which time he was transferred to an interrogation room for questioning. He revealed that he was not a soldier. He was given a <u>Miranda</u> advisement and interrogated for about two hours. Pullin confessed that he had thrown the beer mug that injured Sargent Juran. <p> The district court held that the military police did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0804n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When a younger and allegedly less qualified applicant was chosen over Brown for a supervisory position. Because Brown's position was a military one. His action is barred. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE Brown was employed by the Air Force as a National Guard technician (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/25E4F7A3153B514E88256C72007864B3/$file/0255367.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Coalition alleged that the detainees have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law. Have not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them or afforded the assistance of counsel. Are being held by the United States government in violation of the United States Constitution and the Third Geneva Convention. (3) no federal court could have jurisdiction over the writ. So there is no basis to transfer the petition to another federal district court. As the horror of these events was COALITION OF CLERGY. American forces were sent to Afghanistan and neighboring countries. Was taken on November 13. Thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants were eventually captured or surrendered. The detainees deemed most dangerous by the United States military were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The detainees are being held at the naval base in a secure facility known as Camp X Ray. They have been visited by members of the International Red Cross and diplomats from their home countries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5117.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Ullmann was notified that he was to be separated from the Army for unsatisfactory performance. Ullmann was honorably discharged from the Army for unsatisfactory performance and not by reason of physical disability. Despite having allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3334.html">ROBERT GODOY V. OPM<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Murray M. Even though he also was receiving military retirement pay. Godoy that he could elect to waive his military retirement pay and have his military service used in the computation of his civil service annuity. It would have to recompute his civil service annuity to eliminate his military retirement pay. Which would have the effect of reducing his annuity. Godoy was not at fault for the overpayment but that. The administrative judge to whom the case was assigned (". Which were in effect at the time Mr. S overpayment debt incurred more than 3 years prior to the date of the initial overpayment notice to the debtor will be deemed to be inequitable.". The age of debt rule was revoked by OPM on November 4. Thus [is] out of step with the Government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1539p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether a general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States Army for cocaine possession bars a subsequent federal criminal prosecution on double jeopardy grounds. Rice was permitted to travel to her base at Fort Gordon. Rice was never prosecuted. The commanding officer made this recommendation because there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E7234C9523673F788256FC0007FB11C/$file/0273352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Berzon *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. When the agency's only explanation of its final action is incoherent. I Petitioner Ernesto Adolfo Recinos de Leon (Recinos) is a Guatemalan national who fled that country and arrived in the United States in 1991. As the CAT claim was not administratively exhausted. 1079 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004) 2 The regulation was formerly codified at 8 C.F.R. § 3.1. As the two versions are materially identical. We refer to the version in place as the case comes to us. 3 The IJ's opinion is appended to this opinion. 4 The INS was abolished March 1. We will refer to the INS. As it was the agency involved in Recinos's removal proceedings. 1 RECINOS v. Another uncle was killed sometime thereafter. The IJ's opinion is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5062.html">WILLIAM A. CLARK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Hamish P.M. Hume</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>Helen K. <st1:State>Alabama</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Victor J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5119a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. With whom Claire Shapiro was on the briefs. Which are military goods sold by the United States to foreign governments. Hold that the MTMC is not prohibited from seeking competitive bids for the carriage of FMS goods. Each carrier was required to file with the late Interstate Commerce Com mission a tariff of its prices and conditions of carriage. From the outset the Government in its role as a shipper was exempt from this regime. When the railroads were facing severe financial problems in 1940. The Court of Claims held that the Government could negotiate reduced rates only when the goods involved were transported </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="61"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982053.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waterman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981092.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2) the Board erred in holding that she was not persecuted on political or social grounds. An alien must demonstrate that she is a refugee within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act). The alien bears the burden of proving that she is a refugee as defined by the Act. (2) her own identification with such a group such that her fear of persecution upon return is reasonable. We must uphold the Board's determination that Morales Canales is not eligible for asylum if the determination is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984592.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4592 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Certain authorized personnel at Fort Bragg were permitted to make small military purchases at Brown's store using an International Merchant Purchase Authorization Card ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948150.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will not reverse his sentence based upon these three provisions. 1579 (11th Cir.1993) (ruling absent plain error argument not raised at sentencing is waived on appeal). The district court enhanced Holden's sentence after finding that the mine that he had possessed was a stolen. Section 2K2.1(b)(4) As to the district court's finding that the device was stolen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1492.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for petitioner.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/984040P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was killed along with three other crew members when their CH 47 military helicopter struck a set of defendant's power lines strung approximately 100 feet over the Osage River in central Missouri. (10) whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.2 We affirm. Defendant owed a duty of the highest degree of care because defendant is supplier of electricity. We are bound by the highest state court's pronouncement of state law. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that ordinary care is the correct standard of care in the circumstances of this case. Both motions are granted. Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot. 3 2 B. The plaintiffs could have intervened in the state case. Whereas the district court determined that there was no basis for comparative fault. The application of collateral estoppel in diversity cases is determined according to state law. Trial courts have broad discretion in permitting the offensive use of collateral estoppel. We concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to apply collateral estoppel because the issues in the two cases were not identical and plaintiffs could have joined the state case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/92-4687.man.html">UNITED STATES V. NORIEGA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Noriega asserts that the district court should have dismissed the indictment against him due to his status as a head of state and the manner in which the United States brought him to justice. Noriega then was brought to Miami to face the pending federal charges.<p> Following extensive pre trial proceedings and a lengthy trial. Both matters now are properly before this court.<p> II.<p> <p> At trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964953.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That he was lost and wished to turn around. He informed Roberson that he would have to issue him a citation for the infraction. While Roberson and the first guard were gone. Roberson muttered to himself that he knew he should have gotten rid of the gun but did not because he thought it looked nice or pretty. Defense counsel moved to sup2 press this statement on the grounds that it was uttered after invocation of Roberson's right to remain silent. He also argued that the statement and any evidence seized from the search of the vehicle should have been suppressed because they were the fruit of an illegal stop. He contended that the statute Roberson was charged with violating was unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. We find that Roberson's contention that§ 922(g) is unconstitutional in light of Lopez is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Because that statute contained no provision requiring that the offense in question possession of a firearm in a school zone have any relation whatsoever to interstate commerce. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0317p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claim that they were denied promotions to the rank of sergeant on account of their race and gender. Alleging that they were discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033123U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are natives and citizens of Guatemala. Proceedings were continued for a hearing on their asylum and withholding application. Reasoning that the evidence was insufficient to establish their eligibility for asylum. We will reverse only if the evidence was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1852r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is denied. The panel has concluded that the O'Neill family's wrongful death claim is barred by the doctrine announced in Feres v. I do not believe that it is. Where the Supreme Court held that the family of a service member could not recover under the Federal Tort Claims Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6273.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Walck would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the state trial court previously granted a mistrial in her case after a jury was empaneled and two witnesses were heard. Was charged with first degree felony manslaughter. Clark Kincade and Lee Pena were passengers. Following close behind was a vehicle containing Jai Batson and Joe Smith. Walck was transported performed a blood test at the request of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Walck was arrested and charged with first degree manslaughter. The prosecution's theory of the case is that Ms. Were attempting to switch seats so that Ms. Walck's proffered defense is that the (1) To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/93-3058.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. ADAMS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Goldean Adams and Bruce Raybon Jones of conspiring to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7356.html">DEE W. KILPATRICK V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. Kilpatrick is entitled to the housing benefits at issue. Kilpatrick s spine was the source of his pain. Kilpatrick following the surgery were not the natural consequence of the procedure and rated him as 100 percent disa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5144.html">GARY W. BOWEN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA7745654E7EFDD68825708C0018CD7E/$file/0371596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves a woman who is a Philippine citizen whose husband has served for 19 years in the United States Navy and is a naturalized United States citizen. They have three children who are also now naturalized citizens. She was placed in removal proceedings eight years later and denied the ability to apply for adjustment of status under an INS regulation because she was paroled into the United States at the time of her arrival in 1991. That the regulation is in conflict with the governing statute and is thus invalid. Under the statute she is entitled to apply for adjustment in the removal proceedings. Is invalid. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to consider this appeal. We agree with the Succar decision and hold that 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(8) is invalid.1 Therefore. Delia was improperly precluded from applying for adjustment of status during her removal proceedings. I. Delia is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She is married to Rolando G. The Bonas are the parents of three children who are also naturalized citizens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-3432.htm">02-3432 -- EVANS V. ANDRASCHKO -- 07/28/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Sean Evans. He was sentenced to fifteen years confinement (confinement in excess of thirteen years was suspended for a period of thirteen years). Claiming: (1) the sentence suspension provisions were unclear. (2) the trial judge's inquiry into the factual basis for his guilty plea was insufficiently penetrating. (3) his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was violated by the admission of what he claimed were hearsay statements. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Evans's claims were properly presented to the military courts. His claims were given </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTU1MTFfc28ucGRm/05-5511_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IJ A 78 396 275 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED in part insofar as the petitioner seeks review of the asylum claim and is GRANTED in part with respect to the claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The decision of the BIA is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Any challenge to this finding is deemed waived. The IJ's finding that there was no evidence to 2 show that Montoya was considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1873_007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Believes that he is entitled to constructive service credit for a long ago completed master's degree. Concluding that the denial of credit to Smith was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Smith was commissioned through the Reserve Officer Training Corps and accepted a U.S. He was awarded four years' constructive credit for the time spent earning his medical degree and. Was awarded the rank of captain. Smith was promoted to major in 1984 and to lieutenant colonel in 1990. Although he was considered several times for the rank of colonel. He was awarded slightly more than two years' credit and. Was considered for retroactive promotion to major by a special promotion selection board. Lieutenant colonel all should have been adjusted and that he should have been retroactively promoted to colonel as well. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary and the Board (which are functionally the same party Smith neither gains nor loses anything by naming the Board separately). The decisions of such boards </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-7015.htm">02-7015 -- DAUGHERTY V. THOMPSON -- 03/18/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982832.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Secretary's authority and duties under subsection (d)(1) are plainly limited by some subsections not at issue in this appeal. Brown claims this analysis was improper. 147 48 (1994) (holding that a court should not resort to legislative history when a statute is unambiguous on its face). Brown is correct that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0310.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 17 the date </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E063293B15D827F882573370056C89D/$file/0535648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Hanford Reservation was a plutonium production facility that helped make the atomic bomb that dropped on Nagasaki. A regrettable Hanford byproduct was the radioiodine emitted into the surrounding area. The plaintiffs in this litigation are over two thousand residents who now claim that these emissions. Claiming they were entitled to damages for injuries arising from a nuclear IN RE: HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION LITIGATION 9797 incident pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2210. The history is discussed in our earlier opinions in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. The trial was designed to produce a verdict that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective cases and thus focused on six plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0396p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a native and citizen of Yugoslavia. (3) that the denial of asylum by the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD