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 publicity or privacy and Right?

Your query publicity or (privacy and right) returned 3180 results.

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

	ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809) Senior Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this case is whether the
	ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809) Senior Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this case is whether the
	USA V. EDMOND
	CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC. Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that Almeida's right of publicity claim under § 540.08 and common law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER The amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. That petition is also denied. Other individuals to notify the state government whenever they have
	OPINION/ORDER In which Ochoa is a criminal defendant. Sitting by designation. 2 is an intervenor. I. BACKGROUND In the 1980s Ochoa was a high ranking member of the Medellín drug cartel based out of Medellín. Was released in 1997. He was extradited to this country in 2001. Ochoa was cash poor and land rich. Ochoa sought to admit evidence at trial about an illegal scheme called the
	OPINION/ORDER The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER P.A. was on brief for plaintiffs.
	OPINION/ORDER Promotion of other products and/or for extended time periods) were contemplated by the agreement. The particular terms for any such uses were to be negotiated separately. The case was properly removed to federal district court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Was therefore preempted. Toney later voluntarily dismissed her Lanham Act claim with prejudice and the case was closed. Analysis 3 The question presented by this appeal can be stated simply: is Toney's claim. All legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103 . . . are governed exclusively by this title. No person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State. 2 We note that even if a work is too minimal or lacking in originality to qualify for Federal copyright.
	OPINION/ORDER Senior Judge Butzner wrote a dissenting opinion. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 BELL v. Bell was convicted by a jury in North Carolina of fifty eight counts of sexual misconduct comprised of eight counts of first degree rape. Because Bell's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed after the April 24. 1602 (2000). 2 The record indicates that twenty seven additional counts were dismissed during the course of the trial. 1 BELL v. When Wendy was awakened on a Saturday morning by Bell. Wendy was twelve years old and in the sixth grade. Bell was fiftyfive years old. The threat was effective. While his wife was sleeping or at work. Both of whom lived nearby and were friends of Wendy. Toni also testified that she was present at Bell's home on one occasion when he sexually molested Wendy. Toni was eleven years old when the abuse began. Bell's wife was cooking dinner and Vicki. Vicki was twelve years old. JARVIS hoping Bell would leave Wendy alone if Vicki was present.
	MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693) They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.
	MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693) They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled
	ROE V. CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE RESORT, INC. I Plaintiff appellant Jane Roe (a pseudonym used for purposes of privacy) is an accounts manager for the defendant appellee Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort (hereinafter CMCR or simply defendant). Is used extensively by major corporations. Were given copies of the Policy and told that their (1) Honorable Joseph F. Sitting by designation. written consent to the Policy and their adherence to its requirements were mandatory for their continued employment. Drugs and illegal substances are the policy of CMCR. Adherence to these rules is a condition of employment: 1. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Any prescribed or over the counter drug or medication that has been illegally obtained or is being used in an improper manner. 3. In CMCR vehicles or on CMCR property or to the property to which they have been assigned in the course of their employment. Prescribed drugs may be used only to the extent that they have been reported and approved by an employee supervisor and that they can be taken by the employee without risk of sensory impairment and/or injury to any person or employee.
	OPINION/ORDER Pruett was released from a 23 year federal penitentiary sentence for bank robbery. Apparently in exchange for his testimony against an underworld figure with whom he was serving time. Pruett was placed in the Federal Witness Protection Program in New Mexico. Carnuteson was found murdered. Among Pruett's more brutal offenses were the murder of Peggy Lowe. Since it was Sunday and most establishments were closed he decided to park his car in a secluded. Was alone. As Pruett recalled during his confession:
	98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION -- 06/29/1999 Is the assignee of the publicity rights of current players and handles licensing agreements authorizing the use of their identities. In a letter to Cardtoons dated June 18. Cardtoons was
	OPINION/ORDER Was abducted. The members of the community were unaware of the accused murderer's history. Forty nine states had adopted sex offender registration laws and thirty two states maintained some form of community notification program. 6 We have before us challenges to the constitutionality of the notification requirements of New Jersey's Megan's Law based on the Ex Post Facto. The issues before us are difficult but relatively narrow. We are not called upon to decide whether Megan's Law can constitutionally be applied to one who has committed one of the designated sex crimes after its enactment. Is it our responsibility to determine whether the policy judgments reflected in Megan's Law are prudent ones. Public reaction to Megan's murder was intense. The Law and Public Safety Committee held a hearing upon pending legislation that pre dated Megan's Law and would have required victim notification on the release of offenders. Registration and community notification bills identical to their General Assembly counterparts were introduced in the Senate on September 12.
	01-1228 -- QUIGLEY V. ROSENTHAL -- 04/22/2003 BACKGROUND Plaintiffs William and Dorothy
	OPINION/ORDER Powers was on brief for appellees.
	02-1405 -- DONOHUE V. HOEY -- 09/21/2004 Eighteen months later her slain body was found abandoned in a wooded area in the neighboring county. During the time Buffy was missing. They alleged that the investigation was so deficient that it violated their federal and state constitutional and statutory rights. The Rices claim that summary judgment was improper in light of the evidence they offered. We agree with the district court and affirm. BACKGROUND Because this case is before us on appeal from a district court's decision granting summary judgment. The Rices promptly filed a missing person report. The Rices' biggest complaint about the subsequent investigation is that the police missed the most obvious suspects: Evonne Haley and David Middleton. These individuals were the prime suspects right from the start. There he had been charged with the kidnaping and sexual assault of a teenage girl and was ultimately convicted for false imprisonment and aggravated assault. He was a prime suspect in the investigation.
	OPINION/ORDER Was pregnant. Have now sued Seip under 42 U.S.C.S 1983. A. Seventeen year old Leah Gruenke was an eleventh grader at Emmaus High School and a member of the varsity swim team. Began to suspect that Leah was pregnant. Seip observed that Leah was often nauseated. Leah's body was
	OPINION/ORDER The officers were never charged. The city police department announced publicly that it had concluded the officers were not involved in the alleged sexual assault. While we are sympathetic to the difficult and potentially dangerous situation undercover officers face after having their identities revealed to the public. It is unnecessary for us to reach the issue of whether KOB TV's First Amendment defense merited dismissal of the claims. I. BACKGROUND Vicente Alvarado and Steve Flores were undercover police officers for the City of Albuquerque in early 2004. The friend suggested that Alvarado and Flores were the two officers involved in the sexual assault. They were not told the nature of those allegations. The court order sealing the warrants was not addressed to KOB TV. KOB TV ran newscasts at 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. about the investigation in which Alvarado and Flores were named as being accused of the sexual assault. Someone informed KOB TV that Alvarado and Flores were undercover narcotics officers. KOB TV announced that the news station had learned they were undercover detectives and therefore blurred their faces.
	OPINION/ORDER The Dibles assert that Ronald Dible was a police officer whose rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when he was terminated for participating in (performing in. Was running a website featuring sexually explicit photographs and videos of his wife. It was as simple as that. A fee was required. He was free to view the website's sexually explicit photographs and videos. The purpose of the bar meets was to have fans of the website meet Megan Dible. Were open to the public. Attendees were free to take photographs. Some of whom were partially nude. The Dibles' photographs from the bar meets were compiled on a CD ROM and were then sold through their website. After establishing that he was. The press reported that the website was run by the Dibles and that he was employed as a city police officer. The result of that publicity was disquieting to say the least. Testified that she was called a
	OPINION/ORDER Shaw & Griffith were on brief for appellant. Shaw & Griffith were on brief for appellant. Fraze & Finnerty were Armand Fernandes. Fraze & Finnerty were on brief for appellees. on brief for appellees. The parties currently are engaged in pretrial discovery. Attorney Griffith is alleged to have requested public support for 2 alleged victims of New Bedford police brutality. To have urged anyone who had suffered brutality or discrimination in the past to come forward to help establish the
	97-6087 -- OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. LARUE -- 09/01/1998 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This consolidated appeal involves three separate. Lester LaRue appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (the Company) deciding the Company was the copyright owner of certain photographs. The Company is a natural gas utility that serves Oklahoma City. LaRue was employed by the Company as the Safety Coordinator for its Oklahoma City district. It was part of Mr. LaRue was in his office when the explosion destroyed the Murrah Building. Thinking the explosion may have been due to a natural gas leak. Including the
	USA V. CHILDRESS
	OPINION/ORDER Appellants were charged with various offenses arising from their involvement with the Mexican Mafia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. SHRYOCK 12843 of the several issues are contained in the portions of this opinion in which those issues are addressed. The factual recitals are based on trial testimony and other evidence that the jury could reasonably have credited in reaching its verdicts. Appellants were named in a thirty one count superseding indictment charging them and ten others.1 The charges stemmed from Appellants' involvement with the Mexican Mafia. Testified that the Mexican Mafia is a prison gang formed in the 1950s by Hispanic street gang members incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institution. Benjamin Peters and Victor Murillo were tried together with Appellants. Ambrose Gill's case was severed and he pled guilty following Appellants' trial. 1 12844 UNITED STATES v. As members were released from state custody. The gang had numerous associates who aspired to become members and were willing to commit crimes on the Mexican Mafia's behalf in hopes of attaining membership.
	OPINION/ORDER These questions are extremely important in light of the widespread and increasing use by district courts of confidentiality orders to facilitate settlements. The Newspapers' purpose for intervening was to gain access to the Settlement Agreement which was entered into between Pansy and the Borough. The Newspapers argued that either the Agreement was a judicial record to which it had a right of access. The district court ruled that the Newspapers' motion for intervention was untimely. The district court held that the Agreement was not a judicial record. We will reverse the order of the district court and direct that the Newspapers be permitted to intervene. We will remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The standard of review for each issue raised in this appeal will be discussed in the analysis of the issue. He was investigated and later arrested by agents of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Pansy was charged with offenses relating to the alleged improper handling of parking meter money.
	OPINION/ORDER BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to Local 1. We will summarize the evidence adduced at trial under that standard. Local 1 is a labor union representing electricians in eastern Missouri. Ruzicka Electric and Local 1 do not have a history of friendly relations. Local 1 assured Lindenwood and Ruzicka Electric it did not have a dispute with Lindenwood. It did not seek to remove Ruzicka Electric from the job or have work reassigned. A neutral gate to be used by neutral contractors who were not part of the area standards dispute. Local 1
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When those johns are arrested. We hope that the only visit people make to our jail is a virtual visit.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are confronted in this case with a tension between two issues of critical constitutional concern: the need to protect the confidentiality of jurors' deliberations while. Guaranteeing the right of the press and the public to have access to court proceedings. We will. We will reverse in part and affirm in part the restrictions imposed by the district court on the conduct of juror interviews. We find that the sealing of the transcript was accomplished prematurely. It was done without adequate notice. We further find that the restrictions imposed on the use of juror information at the time of the unsealing were not supported by an actual or potential threat either of juror harassment or of invasion of the deliberative process as it was taking place. Nor do we intend to suggest that the restrictions which we find to have been improperly imposed here may not be permissible in some future case. There are. Is directly controlling. That the presumptive right of access applied to the voir dire proceedings as they were recorded in the trial transcript.[fn1] Applying the requirement that detailed findings of the need for restrictions be made before any restriction is imposed.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Frank Cicero Jr. Dupree Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae Dow Jones & Company. With him on the briefs was Louis K. Circuit Judge: Both parties to this case are members of the United States House of Representatives. We held that Representative McDermott did not have a First Amendment right to disclose the tape. At the time of the conversation Gingrich was the subject of an investigation by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Representative Boehner was chairman of the House Republican Conference. Representative Boehner was in Florida when he joined the conference call. Representative McDermott was the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee. The letter read: Enclosed in the envelope you will find a tape of a conversation heard December 21. The call was a conference call heard over a scanner. We felt the information included were [sic] of importance to the committee. We were advised by her to turn the tape directly over to you. We also understand that we will be granted immunity.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that there was no evidence that Grendahl or the other defendants had obtained a credit report on Phillips by false pretenses. The court rejected Phillips's contention that he had pleaded a claim for wrongful disclosure of a consumer report and stated that such a claim would not be viable anyway because the document at issue in this case was not a
	OPINION/ORDER She contends the district court erred in concluding that the media defendants were not state actors. I. Anderson alleges that she was raped by her estranged husband while she was unconscious. So long as the broadcast was limited to a view of the perpetrator's face and was
	OPINION/ORDER DE NN IS RE MP . LOU IS REYES. CU RT IS ST IE LY . TH EO DO RE LEW IS. F R ANC IS M . Contending that Appellants' claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	UNITED STATES V. MCVEIGH Which motion was made available to the public only in redacted form. Which were made available to the public only in redacted form. At the time this action was commenced. Who is accused of assisting McVeigh in his preparation for the bombing. Is scheduled to go to trial following the conclusion of post trial proceedings in the McVeigh matter. Nichols heard a news report that McVeigh was a suspect in the bombing. Asked to speak with someone regarding why his name was being mentioned in connection with the bombing investigation. Nichols was arrested on a material witness warrant from the United States District Court in Oklahoma City. (3) whether there was a substantial probability that some recognized interest of higher value than public access to information will be prejudiced or affected adversely by the disclosure. (5) whether closure by the court was essential to protect that interest. The relevant documents are: (1) The redacted portions of Nichols'
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. It is unclear why he did so. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 CAMPBELL v. In which Campbell was the principal investor. William Polan was affiliated with Royalton and. Explaining that the information Lyon allegedly disseminated about Campbell was true and public. Stating that it was
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER We must decide whether Appellant is judicially estopped from contending that he is a
	98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000 Circuit Judges.
	98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000 1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment. I Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott
	OPINION/ORDER The issues on which Coplin sought injunctive and declaratory relief were to be presented in a bench trial while the monetary damages and attorney's fees claims were to be heard. I. The FPATV Committee is a regulatory and advisory board created by the Council. The primary responsibility of the FPATV Committee is to supervise. To have the case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge. 2 1 Under FPATV Rule I(A).
	OPINION/ORDER Claiming that the patient in the photograph was Lawrence S. That Bevis's privacy rights could not possibly have been violated because the patient in the photograph was obscured by equipment and personnel and was not identifiable. Accompanying the government's motion were affidavits from the public affairs specialist at the VA hospital and the Lowell Sun photographer who had taken the picture. Patients in their beds are subject to being observed by visitors. It was her opinion that
	OPINION/ORDER At issue is whether the First Amendment precludes imposition of civil damages for the disclosure of portions of a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation containing information of public significance when the defendants. Wyoming Valley West School District was in contract negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union (the
	OPINION/ORDER Reno were on brief. Barlow were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We vacate the jury's verdict on the false light claim and order an entry of judgment in favor of the defendant.
	OPINION/ORDER Which have since been sealed following media reports about their contents.
	OPINION/ORDER Published opinion filed 12/2/99 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98 7002 (CA 97 232 5 H) January 4. Line 3 of second indented quotation the phrase
	OPINION/ORDER Kyle Brinlee was a soldier in the Oklahoma National Guard who was killed in action while serving in Iraq on May 11. He was the first member of the Oklahoma National Guard to be killed in action since the Korean war. Brinlee's death and funeral were the subject of intense media coverage. Robert Showler is Sgt. (1) and Johnny Davidson is his maternal (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Sitting by designation. (1) Brinlee was adopted by Robert Brinlee. At which time Showler's parental rights were terminated. grandfather and the personal representative of his estate. Stephens that although the media was allowed to attend the funeral. Peter Turnley is an international photojournalist who was working on assignment for Harper's. Turnley is a Contributing Editor engaged on a contract basis to produce photo essays. Turnley was working on a photo essay for Harper's concerning those grieving over deaths caused by the war in Iraq. The funeral was held at the Pryor High School gymnasium. Brinlee's casket was moved to the back of the auditorium.
	OPINION/ORDER Robert Brown was banned from all properties or programs operated by the Michigan City Department of Parks and Recreation. Brown is a resident of Michigan City. Washington Park (the
	OPINION/ORDER Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was
	OPINION/ORDER Challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to Warner Bros. on their claim that the Picture's portrayal of their father was so egregiously false and offensive as to allow them to bring a false light invasion of privacy claim. Because we are unsure of the proper reach of Fla. The fishing vessel known as the Andrea Gail was caught in this storm and lost at sea. Were presumed to have been killed. The book was published in 1997. Who were main characters in the film. It also included brief portrayals of each individual that is a party to this appeal. Was portrayed as a down and out swordboat captain who was obsessed with the next big catch. It did indicate at the beginning of the film that
	98-1099 -- PASCOUAU V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. -- 07/14/1999 Finding Title VII preempted her common law claims that were based on the same conduct. The remaining claims were heard at a bench trial. Almost three years after the trial was completed. She asserts the district court should not have allowed Martin Marietta to introduce evidence of her sexual history. Even assuming the court's long deliberation in this instance was punitive. While we are troubled by the length of time between trial and judgment. P. 10(c) which provides
	OPINION/ORDER Solano was shown shirtless and wearing his red lifeguard trunks. Making it appear he was willing to degrade himself and endorse such a magazine. In the upper left corner was a red circle containing the words. The
	OPINION/ORDER When the Corts were sued after they covered a mural on the wall of their building. We affirm the district court's decision that there was no duty to defend. The site chosen was the south exterior wall of a former factory building owned by the Lilli Ann Corporation. After the mural was covered. We are asked CORT v. Is a question of law. We have jurisdiction over this diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and may exist even when coverage is in doubt.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
	BOEHNER, JOHN A. V. MCDERMOTT, JAMES A. With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. Theodore J. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
	OPINION/ORDER Fletcher was diagnosed with diabetes. Fletcher claimed that she did not have a staph infection at the time PCF terminated her employment. Fletcher's doctor wrote to Sawyer informing her that Fletcher was indeed infected with the staph virus. Although the regulations promulgated by the Department have the force of law. The regulations are not formally published. 3 2 In portions of Sawyer's deposition read at trial. Claiming that she needed to know whether Fletcher was infected with staph in order to determine whether Fletcher could return to work in the PCF deli. PCF timely cross appealed the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the invasion of privacy claim. 4 DISCUSSION A party who moves for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury may later
	OPINION/ORDER M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access.
	OPINION/ORDER M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
	OPINION/ORDER M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
	OPINION/ORDER The effect on the record of the District Court's addition to it after a notice of appeal is filed. Because we hold that we have jurisdiction over an appealable collateral oral order. That it was error to issue the gag order. It will be reversed. The order was to last until the Court received the motion and decided it. The article stated that the device
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are faced today with the question of whether plaintiff. (4) that her removal was in retaliation for her stated political views and consequently in violation of the First Amendment. That her allegations are insufficient to make out a Fourth Amendment violation or a substantive due process violation. We conclude that her First Amendment and procedural due process liberty interest claims are viable. Our undertaking here is
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm. Had been arrested for allegedly raping a sevenyear old girl he was babysitting. Of Farmington Sunday on charges he allegedly raped a 7 year old girl he was babysitting at her Uniontown home Friday evening. Bowley turned himself in to police Sunday at 5:45 p.m. and was charged with two counts of rape and one count each of indecent assault. Charges against Bowley were filed at the Connellsville Juvenile Detention Facility. Where he is being held. It does not appear that Bowley was actually prosecuted. 3 1 After seeing the report of his arrest in the newspaper. Because there was a federal claim. Relying on the Report and Recommendation from At the time the case was filed. Was a minor. The District Court's grant of the motion to dismiss is a final order. Which we have jurisdiction to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Only if it is certain that no relief could be granted under the facts pleaded may we affirm. The Herald Standard argues that the breach of confidentiality claim is not cognizable under Pennsylvania law and that Bowley cannot establish each element of the invasion of privacy claim.
	OPINION/ORDER LLC were on brief. Miller were on brief. Alleging that it was a price fixing purchasing pool. OSF was tasked with designing and marketing a UNIX based operating system known as OSF/1 that would become an industry standard for UNIX users. Which essentially offered competing suppliers the opportunity to submit their products to be integrated into the OSF/1 operating system.
	CASH V. SMITH (11/1/2000, NO. 99-12797)
	OPINION/ORDER These appeals were consolidated for oral argument. Which was expedited at the Reporters' request. We entered an order which stated
	CASH V. SMITH (11/1/2000, NO. 99-12797)
	OPINION/ORDER Were convicted of improperly accepting payments from plumbers whose work they inspected in violation of the Hobbs Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from a final judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 30. Was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He contends that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the district court failed to inquire properly into whether premature jury deliberations prejudiced him. (2) the district court's calculation of the loss under the fraud guideline is not supported by the record. Bertoli urges that if the case is remanded. We will affirm the judgment of conviction but we will vacate the sentence. Therefore we will remand the matter to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this Opinion. Much of the substantive conduct described at the trial is not generally relevant to this appeal. Certain evidence is evidence of conduct underlying Counts One and Two. Bertoli and his co conspirators were charged with unlawfully manipulating the prices of certain stocks. Who was an analyst at the firm of Wood Gundy.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Jonathan Crowell and Gary Bizek were arrested while protesting an Aryan Nations parade in Coeur d'Alene. Crowell was arrested for obstruction of justice after he refused to consent to the search of his backpack. Bizek was arrested for possession of a deadly weapon after he aroused suspicion by wearing attire that covered his face and by walking without putting weight on the cane he carried. Crowell was prosecuted and tried by a jury for obstructing an officer on April 14 and 15. Was not convicted in this trial because of a hung jury.1 Bizek received a citation shortly after his arrest on July 18. His case was dismissed by the county prosecutor after arraignment. The defendants are law enforcement officers with the City of Coeur d'Alene: Defendant Daniel Dixon. Crowell was awaiting retrial. The record does not indicate whether Crowell was retried and. The result of the second jury trial. 2 Five plaintiffs were named in the complaint: Gary Bizek. Malone were dismissed by the district court on partial summary judgment.
	OPINION/ORDER The plaintiff in this case was one of Fischer's victims. Plaintiff was invited to appear at Fischer's sentencing hearing in order to testify about the impact of the molestation and about the punishment Fischer should receive. The courtroom was. A reporter from the AP was in the courtroom when the judge issued the no disclosure instruction. If they have one. That the allegations in plaintiff's complaint are true. 1 DOE v. Although many other reporters were also present at the sentencing hearing. The AP reporter was apparently the only one to include plaintiff's name in his official report. The district court rejected plaintiff's invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress claims on state law grounds and ruled that plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation claim was barred by the First Amendment. Plaintiff claims that the AP is liable for the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation.2 He argues that after the trial court issued its non disclosure order. Reporting a matter that was heard in open court is not so
	98-6446 -- MITCHELL V. CITY OF MOORE, OKLAHOMA -- 07/11/2000 While this suit was still pending before the district court. Captain Mitchell's employment was terminated. Arguing the summary judgment order was res judicata as to the issues in arbitration. The current case is actually four appeals. Captain Mitchell was an active member of the Fraternal Order of Police (Union). Conceivably formed the background for his claims that future disciplinary actions were based on anti union animus and thus violated his First Amendment rights: Captain Mitchell has frequently expressed interest in assuming a more responsible position within the Police Department. Chief Storm's concern about his relationship with the Union was well founded. Who is responsible for hiring and firing the Chief of Police and other city employees. The City Manager informed President Tipps such a vote would have no impact on his decision to retain Chief Storm and the publicity surrounding the vote would damage the police department's chances of obtaining new facilities in an upcoming bond or sales tax election.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. Claiming that they were unable to complete the robbery. Carlos was shot in the head. After two more shots were fired. Horton was no longer working for Desir. Horton
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER In view of the pressures of time discussed later in the opinion. * This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is
	OPINION/ORDER Are sought for use in the forthcoming trial in the Southern District of New York of a suit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Hammond is one of the plaintiffs in that suit and will also be testifying as an expert witness. The district court held that the production of the records is barred by regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Or implementation specifications that are more stringent than the requirements. A standard is
	OPINION/ORDER Krystle Rogers was killed and her passengers James Brad Dooley. Anna Christine Harper were injured when her vehicle collided with one driven by Randall Albright. Who was intoxicated. Inc. d/b/a Anheuser Busch Sales of Tulsa (which will be referred to individually and collectively as Anheuser Busch). Plaintiffs alleged that Anheuser Busch was liable under negligence and wrongful death causes of action because its employees had served beer to Albright despite his noticeable intoxication at an event that it sponsored and for which it supplied beer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Is in Stillwater. Advertising materials were to contain such slogans as
	OPINION/ORDER We decide whether Flowers's claims are timely and. A few days later Flowers (doubtless realizing that honesty is the best policy after all) sold her story to the Star. Later news reports suggested that the tapes may have been selectively edited. The court held that most of Flowers's allegations are time barred. Holding that some of the statements are merely rhetorical hyperbole and others are opinions based on earlier news reports. There was nothing left to conspire about. CARVILLE 7 defamation in Nevada is two years. While the statute in other potentially relevant states is only one. Some of Flowers's claims are only timely under Nevada's longer limitations period. Before Flowers filed suit. [2] Because this is a diversity case. Many states have passed
	96-1507 -- M.M. V. ZAVARAS -- 03/17/1998 Plaintiff used the pseudonym
	OPINION/ORDER Ramirez was present. Groh told her they had a search warrant and were there
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: 1. The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. Ramirez was present. Groh told her they had a search warrant and were there
	OPINION/ORDER The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Following are the facts presented in the light most favorable to the Tuckers. Her final date at BMS would have been May 2. She maintains that Merck does not hire anyone until it approves her Employee Profile.1 She claims to have discussed this issue with Johnson on numerous occasions. She repeatedly told Johnson that she still was working for BM S. Testified that Merck requires an applicant's Employee Profile to be approved before it will hire her. Tucker must have been a Merck employee by March 2001 because it invited her to attend employee only training at that time. 3 1 On April 16. She sent BMS the memorandum stating that she was resigning with two weeks notice. He would not have allowed her to attend Merck's employee training program. Tucker was listed as a current employee of both Merck and BMS. Tucker still was acting in a managerial capacity at BMS by participating in teleconferences and submitting expenses for reimbursement.
	OPINION/ORDER Appellants are ten former obstetrical patients at MUSC whose urine was tested pursuant to the Policy. We will refer to the defendants collectively as
	OPINION/ORDER At least fourteen separate allegedly defamatory statements were identified. APC was the only provider of such services in the area. The series was also extensively promoted by the station by use of clips of portions of the report calculated to pique the interest of the viewing public.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER 1 determination that Summers' allegations of invasion of privacy are insufficient to state a cause of action. The statute of limitations to bring an invasion of privacy action is two years. All acts alleged must have occurred after August 30. Georgia courts have long recognized the form of invasion consisting of intrusion upon physical solitude or seclusion analogous to a trespass in plaintiff's home or other quarters. Such as hospital or hotel rooms.6 Georgia courts have extended the principle beyond physical The four torts include: (1) intrusion upon plaintiff's seclusion or solitude. Watching or observing a person in a public place is not an intrusion upon one's privacy. At 342 43 courts have held that surveillance of an individual on public thoroughfares. Is an unreasonable intrusion upon a person's privacy.9 S.E.2d at 500). 704 (1973) (Reasonable surveillance of residence from public road by insurance company is common method to obtain evidence to defend a lawsuit.
	OPINION/ORDER Is either a mascot or a symbol of the university. Southern Illinois (Salukis) have nicknames that would make any list of ones that are pretty cool. Small schools in this circuit are no slouches in the cool nickname department. One would have a hard time beating the Hustlin' Quakers of Earlham College (Richmond. Most schools have mundane nicknames. How can one feel unique when your school's nickname is Tigers (43 different colleges or universities). Are pretty generic and pretty boring. There are a few princes. The Judges (we are particularly partial to this one) of Brandeis University. Or the Vixens (will this nickname be changed if the school goes coed?) of Sweet Briar College in Virginia? As wonderful as all these are. One thing is fairly clear although most are not at all controversial. Some are. Even the Banana Slug was born out of controversy. For many 2 3 What in the world is a
	OPINION/ORDER Louison and Merrick and Louison were on brief. This appeal presents a problematic First Amendment question as to whether the plaintiff was a
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER As will be seen. We summarily will resolve the substantive issue before us which we find not to be difficult. Have sought indemnification from the approximately 50 appellees (
	OPINION/ORDER Wayne was a patient at the hospital. Because Wayne was herself a physician with surgical privileges at the hospital. When Wayne&s action was discovered. The incident was referred to the hospital&s Surgery Service Committee for investigation. Because the Surgical Service Committee concluded Wayne&s removal of the medical records was a medical staff issue. The matter was referred to a meeting of the hospital&s Medical Executive Committee (MEC). Wayne was invited to participate. Luke&s and Mercy hospitals were merged to form Genesis. 2 2 In April 1993. Because the suspension was not taken
	OPINION/ORDER Attempted to have a government witness killed. The parties have stipulated that Chandler is African American. One of the very important questions is whether or not you would be able to serve on the jury if the trial were to last from three to six weeks. Your response was that you are not able to sit on the jury. Have you had an opportunity to think about that response recognizing that it's an important obligation of citizenship to serve on a jury when called. It certainly is inconvenient for everyone? Are you willing to serve if you are selected? If I have to. I will. If you were selected would you then hold it against either of the parties? Would you hold it against the government or the defendants if you were selected to serve? Do you recognize and agree that it is an important service that we are all required to perform from time to time? CHANDLER: I recognize that if I have to do it. Could you tell us if it is not such a great invasion of your privacy as to why you're so reluctant to serve? Do you understand that under our system of law every person is equal and every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
	OPINION/ORDER Is HIV positive. He was informed by the medical staff at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) that his medical condition would be kept confidential. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. Because this right was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct. We will affirm the dismissal of Doe's complaint. Doe was informed by the medical staff that he was HIV positive. He was told that his medical condition would be kept confidential and that medical r ecords relating to his illness would be maintained separately from his general prison file. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. When Doe was taken for sick call appointments. Doe claimed his constitutional right to privacy was violated by the
	OPINION/ORDER Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. *Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. section 46(d). 2 No. 96 1716 COUNSEL ARGUED: Charles O. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: After Appellant Robert Dobkin's graduate traineeship grant was terminated at the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. Dobkin and his parents were consolidated for a trial which lasted five days and terminated with verdicts in favor of Dr. He was accepted to the School of Hygiene and Public Health and to the Gerontology Program for the 1990 91 academic year and was awarded a National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health traineeship grant in gerontology. German advised Dobkin that he was not ready to take the preliminary departmental oral examination.1 Disregarding Dr. Dobkin's grant was terminated. Fishbein made statements which he claims were defamatory.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Woody N. That
	99-1263A -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000 The section should read
	99-1263 -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000 The manager and acting director of the restaurant where he was employed as a waiter. Herring was serving a period of probation under Keenan's supervision. The district court rejected Keenan's contention that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects an individual from the disclosure of information concerning a person's health. Because we hold that it was not clearly established. That a probationer had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding information concerning his or her medical condition. I Because we are reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint. On or about September of 1993. At no time did he inform Keenan that the results of the HIV test were positive. Herring was employed as a waiter at the 50's Café.
	OPINION/ORDER We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU.
	OPINION/ORDER Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read
	OPINION/ORDER When the district court is asked to order outright disclosure. The burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime fraud exception applies. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER This interlocutory appeal arises from a denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.1 At issue is whether police officers' threat to disclose the suspected sexual orientation of an arrestee to his family member violated the young man's 1. Is entitled to every favorable inference that can be drawn from the record. Some facts are undisputed. We will affirm the order of the District Court because the law is clearly established that matters of personal intimacy are pr otected from threats of disclosure by the right to privacy and at least one of the officers involved was aware that his conduct was knowingly violative of that right. 18 year old Marcus W ayman and a 17 year old male friend were parked in a lot adjacent to a beer distributor. The car and its occupants were observed by the defendant police officer. Wilinsky was concerned about previous burglaries of the beer distributor and was suspicious of the fact that the headlights on the car were out. It was appar ent to the officers that the young men had been drinking alcohol.
	97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998 McVeigh (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Famed motorcycle stuntman Evel Knievel and his wife Krystal were photographed when they attended ESPN's Action Sports and Music Awards in 2001. Who was wearing a motorcycle jacket and rosetinted sunglasses. Contending that the photograph and caption were defamatory because they accused Evel of soliciting prostitution and KNIEVEL v. ESPN 31 implied that Krystal was a prostitute. The court granted ESPN's motion on the ground that the photograph and its caption were not defamatory as a matter of law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. At least seven books and four motion pictures have been dedicated to his life. Well known musicians Ben Harper and James Hatfield were there. As were popular rappers Busta Rhymes and LL Cool J. Who is commonly thought of as the
	98-2214 -- GARCIA V. AEROTHERM CORP. -- 12/21/1999 These claims were based on the statements of the human resources manager. Who repeated the allegations of an anonymous caller who claimed to have seen Ms. If that is denied. Michele Garcia was working at Aerotherm as an electronic technician. Was unable to do so. Ms. Lorenzen is the program manager at Aerotherm. Platt is the manager of the data and control systems department. Platt's department is divided into four divisions. Platt decided to have Ms. were asked to come to Mr. Lorenzen's office where they were informed of the allegations. Candelaria was then called to Mr. Lorenzen's office where she was told she had been accused of taking drugs and would have to take a drug test. Returned a few minutes later to inform the managers they might have made a mistake. Garcia was not called to the meeting because she was still at home with back pain from an injury she suffered the previous Friday. Thinking she was conversing with Ms. Garcia she would have to submit to a drug test by noon the next day in Las Cruces or she would lose her job.
	MITTLEMAN ELAINE V. USA
	OPINION/ORDER Were also on the brief. Circuit Judge: This is a case involving a cruel and sadistic identity theft. We conclude that the service is statutorily immune pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). I Matchmaker.com is a commercial Internet dating service. Members are required to complete a detailed questionnaire containing both multiple choice and essay questions. Some of the potential multiple choice answers are innocuous. Some are sexually suggestive. (New members were permitted to post
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Appellant Kenny Roy Miller (
	UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN (8/20/2002, NO. 01-14305) Was convicted of racketeering. He was sentenced to life in prison. The Outlaws Motorcycle Club
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for Colour Library Books. Were on brief for The Winston Company. Although the photograph was meant to appear in a coffee table book titled Boston: City of Dreams. It was never published or distributed. Provides information about dining and entertainment in France and is sponsored by the Cooperation Gesellschaft fuer Markendiversifikation mbh. At least 305 copies of various French magazines containing the advertisements were distributed to. At least 183 of these were sold from. Fellow police officers told Noonan that a magazine with a picture of him on the back cover was circulating. As a result of what Noonan felt was an attack on his reputation. Defendant Lintas:Paris is a French corporation. Reynolds Tobacco (
	UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN (8/20/2002, NO. 01-14305) Was convicted of racketeering. He was sentenced to life in prison. The Outlaws Motorcycle Club
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. The district court ruled that all rulings applied to all defendants and motions joining co defendants' motions were unnecessary. That he was paid $150 for each one eighth kilogram of cocaine packaged. Nez Matta testified that by the time the drug operation was located at the Coral Beach mesa in 1991. The brothers were selling Santiago Lugo's heroin. Vila and was responsible for getting heroin to the street dealers. Guez' ability to run the drug point was in question. The Rosarios were still allowed to sell packages of heroin and cocaine. An expert witness testified that the notebooks were consistent with those kept by an illicit drug organization. He opined that the
	OPINION/ORDER Detective Broderick was among those assigned to investigate the matter. Was able to obtain the tag number for the vehicle. The parking garage was also situated near the Fairfax Methadone Treatment Center (
	OPINION/ORDER Introduction The question presented in this appeal is whether pretrial publicity denied John Goss a fair trial. Which is located in Meade County in the southwest part of the state on the Oklahoma border. She was shot and killed in her parents' home. The population of Meade County was approximately 5. The population of Plains was approximately 1. The murder was the first in Meade County in more than seventy years. The victim and her family were well known and respected members of the community. He was found two weeks later hiding in a small town in northwestern Oklahoma. Factual and Procedural Background The essential facts underlying Goss's crimes are not in dispute. As Janice was preparing to leave for work. As [Goss] was attempting to start the vehicle. An ambulance was called but Janice died before it arrived. A fruitless manhunt was organized. [Goss] was arrested in Tyrone. The second motion to change venue was heard only one month before trial. Goss called nine witnesses whose names were chosen at random from the local phonebook.
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of racketeering. He was sentenced to life in prison. The Outlaws Motorcycle Club The Outlaws Motorcycle Club was founded at a bar just outside of Chicago in 1935. The United States is divided into five regions. Each other country is considered a region. These clubhouses are used for
	OPINION/ORDER The case is. Appeals a jury (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I. DTV is a direct broadcast satellite system. Which is programmed to allow a customer to access only those channels included in his or her subscription. Various pirate access devices have been developed that allow users to receive and unscramble DTV programming without a paid subscription. Crespin argues that he was authorized by DTV. In the absence of proof that he was unauthorized to receive DTV's transmissions. Crespin claims that the district court had no jurisdiction over him and that DTV is not a
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of
	OPINION/ORDER The questioning was part of a survey the Palmdale School District was conducting regarding psychological barriers to learning. Hold that there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as stu 15064 FIELDS v. We hold that the defendants' actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. I. Kristi Seymour volunteered as a
	OPINION/ORDER The caseworkers removed eleven year old John Doe Jr. from his fourth grade classroom and interviewed him about corporal punishment that he and other students may have received and certain family matters. Arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs' suit. Although we conclude that some of the actions taken by the defendants during the course of the Bureau's investigation were unconstitutional. Agree with the district court that the caseworkers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' suit. The district court's decision is. If the report is screened in. An intake supervisor will assign it an urgency level to determine how quickly an investigation must be initiated. After the file is received by a field office. Who is then required to contact the reporter(s) (of child abuse). If the alleged maltreater is a parent. It was given a 24 hour urgency designation and assigned to John Wichman. That they had advised her 2 When a child is enrolled at Greendale. Parents are given a copy of the school's
	BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO, INC. (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515) We affirm.
	BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO, INC. (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515) We affirm.
	LEVAN V. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC (9/29/1999, NO. 97-5380) That ABC and Willson therefore were liable for injuries that appellees suffered as a result of the story. We conclude that ABC and Willson are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Was insufficient to establish one of the elements of appellees' claim: that ABC and Willson broadcast the story with actual malice. Were engaged in the business of organizing and managing commercial real estate limited partnerships. The idea behind these partnerships was that small investors. It was anticipated that the partnerships would hold onto the properties for a period of time ranging from between four to nine years and then sell the properties and distribute the proceeds among the investors. There was a severe nationwide decline in the value of real estate. The properties held by Levan's limited partnerships were no exception. Levan and BFC offered their limited partners the two exchanges that are at the center of this dispute. Which were completed in 1989 and 1991. Were of a type referred to in the industry as a
	OPINION/ORDER TMJI is a Colorado corporation that manufactures prosthetic total and partial temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants for use in patients suffering from TMJ disorders. They have filed one brief as the CIGNA appellees. Aetna states that it will not cover either the total or partial TMJ implants manufactured by TMJI. In a similar bulletin CIGNA states that it will not cover TMJI's partial joint device. The district court granted the motions on the ground that the bulletins were protected statements of opinion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. The total joint prosthesis is available in three sizes (for both the right and left sides of the jaw) and can also be custom made. The partial joint prosthesis is available in 44 premade sizes (for both sides of the jaw). TMJI is the only manufacturer of a partial joint prosthesis. 000 of TMJI's devices have been implanted in patients. 40% of which have been partial joint prostheses. Clinical studies have shown that the partial joint implants
	BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515) We affirm.
	BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515) We affirm.
	OPINION/ORDER The California Court of Appeal's findings are
	LEVAN V. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC (9/29/1999, NO. 97-5380) That ABC and Willson therefore were liable for injuries that appellees suffered as a result of the story. We conclude that ABC and Willson are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Was insufficient to establish one of the elements of appellees' claim: that ABC and Willson broadcast the story with actual malice. Were engaged in the business of organizing and managing commercial real estate limited partnerships. The idea behind these partnerships was that small investors. It was anticipated that the partnerships would hold onto the properties for a period of time ranging from between four to nine years and then sell the properties and distribute the proceeds among the investors. There was a severe nationwide decline in the value of real estate. The properties held by Levan's limited partnerships were no exception. Levan and BFC offered their limited partners the two exchanges that are at the center of this dispute. Which were completed in 1989 and 1991. Were of a type referred to in the industry as a
	OPINION/ORDER GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) (
	OPINION/ORDER FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that occurred in San Diego in 1997 and 1998. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as
	OPINION/ORDER Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached dissent. FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that UNITED STATES v. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as
	OPINION/ORDER I. We set forth the facts as the jury could have found them in support of its verdict. SEPTA would have to pay substantial penalties. If the actual cost was 90% or less of that estimate. Pierce was responsible for monitoring those costs. John Doe is a SEPTA employee. Doe was HIV positive. Retrovir is a prescription drug used solely to treat HIV. If he or anyone else reviewed employee names in association with the drugs the employees were taking. He was never informed that this change might alter his confidentiality status. These reports were part of the contract between Rite Aid and SEPTA. This report listed employees who were filling prescriptions at a cost of $100 or more per employee in the past month. It was immediately apparent to Pierce that the reports would reveal employees' medications. Pierce stated that her purpose in reviewing the reports with Aufschauer was several fold. Some employees would purchase prescription drugs under the SEPTA health plan in order to give them to an ill friend or relative who was not covered by SEPTA's benefit package.
	OPINION/ORDER The Wilsons allege that their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when officers entered their home and sought to execute an arrest warrant for their son. The Wilson's grandchild who was present during a portion of the actions that form the basis of this lawsuit. The material facts are not disputed. Federal and state law enforcement agents were engaged in a joint effort to apprehend fugitives with a history of armed. Maryland Sheriff's Department was formed to execute an outstanding arrest warrant. GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO TAKE DOMINIC JEROME WILSON IF HE/SHE BE FOUND IN YOUR BAILIWICK .... Were to accompany the officers to observe and chronicle the execution of the warrant.3 The reporters' participation was part of a two week. The officers encountered a man dressed only in undergarments who was very 2 A panel of this court earlier issued a decision reversing the district court. These two individuals were later identified as the Wilsons. Was not present. The Wilsons asserted that their constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the officers' actions in three ways: (1) the officers used excessive force in attempting to execute the arrest warrant.
	OPINION/ORDER California *These actions were initially assigned to Hon. Were subsequently reassigned to Hon. Is preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER California *These actions were initially assigned to Hon. Were subsequently reassigned to Hon. Is preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Citizens allege that the
	OPINION/ORDER California *These actions were initially assigned to Hon. Were subsequently reassigned to Hon. 2001 is amended as follows: At slip op. 7529. It is well established in California that illegal provisions of a contract are void and unenforceable. Is preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER California *These actions were initially assigned to Hon. Were subsequently reassigned to Hon. 2001 is amended as follows: At slip op. 7529. It is well established in California that illegal provisions of a contract are void and unenforceable. Is preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political.
	OPINION/ORDER Opinion filed 9/19/02 is reinstated. Opinion filed 9/19/02 is vacated. That it is void for vagueness. Was summarized more fully in Bryant I. A regulated abortion clinic is defined as
	OPINION/ORDER We affirm the district court's determination that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity for effecting a warrantless arrest of McClish within his home. Because Holmberg was never convicted of a crime. We reverse the district court's judgment that his § 1983 wrongful arrest claim was barred by Heck v. The essential facts and procedural history are these. Who was not home when the deputies first arrived. The underlying conflict between the neighbors seems to have arisen over a property dispute. A number of the incidents involving threats or profanity shouted across the property line seem to have occurred when Michael Padzur was clearing brush from the disputed area.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court dismissed Brunette's claim because she did not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Media was a state actor. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which was executing the search warrant. The Media was not a state actor. It was simply a private spectator. Brunette's property is rugged and hilly. Entrance is possible only by traversing a frontage road and passing through a locked gate. Concerned citizens reported to the Humane Society that Brunette was
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Page 2 who pose an extreme escape risk or who have a clearly demonstrated history of violent acts toward other prisoners and staff. Sibert concluded from his investigation that the allegations were baseless. He was the only person with authority to order redactions. Stamping each page with a statement identifying that it was being delivered to the prisoner. Because it was not marked for possible redaction. Thus was not ruled on by Jackson. This information would be exempt from release and would not have been given to prisoners under internal prison policy and the department's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policy. Lowery stated in an affidavit that if he had noticed the social security numbers he would have removed them. Prisoners have threatened and taunted the officers. Often incorporating the plaintiffs' social security numbers (which they have committed to memory) into the taunts. Prisoners have even accurately described plaintiffs' children to them. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Fritz Jackson because it found he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
	OPINION/ORDER Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility. Are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. The visit includes a
	OPINION/ORDER We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Inc. is a California corporation owned and operated by Robert Zicari and Janet Romano.1 Extreme Associates maintained a website through which it engaged in the business of producing. The Inspectors found that the website was divided into two sections. Members were required to register and to pay $89.95 to gain access to the website for ninety days. The first count was a conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 371 3 charging For purposes of the motion to dismiss in the District Court. Extreme Associates stipulated that the material available on its website is legally obscene. 3 2 18 U.S.C. § 371 provides in pertinent part: 4 Extreme Associates with conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States. From such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service . . . any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years.
	OPINION/ORDER Is hereby amended as follows:
	OPINION/ORDER Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing
	OPINION/ORDER P.L.L.C. were on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal by defendant Robert W. Lee was indicted on charges stemming from the alleged payment of bribes by boxing promoters to Lee and other officials of the International Boxing Federation (
	OPINION/ORDER Anderson's constitutional privacy interest was clearly established. (3) consequently rejecting Officer Blake's contention that he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Which was disclosed to a television reporter and aired on a local news broadcast in Oklahoma City. She alleges she was the victim of a rape that occurred while she was unconscious. Anderson alleges that there was no law enforcement purpose in defendant's release of the video. Holding that the alleged criminal activity depicted was not that of Ms. It also rejected Officer Blake's argument that the video was destined to be made public. Concluding that such public disclosure was not inevitable. Anderson's privacy interest was clearly established under existing law. It concluded that the video depiction of the alleged rape was of a substantially more personal nature than a diary held to be protected in Sheets. Discussion An order denying qualified immunity that raises purely legal issues is immediately appealable. Our review is de novo. We will not reverse the district court unless
	01-1356 -- ARNDT V. KOBY -- 10/31/2002 Which we affirm. BACKGROUND Six year old JonBenet Ramsey was murdered inside her home in Boulder. Was one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. Was the only officer present when the child's body was found. Arndt was involved in the murder investigation until she was removed from the case in May 1997 by defendant Thomas Koby. Then the Boulder Police Chief. While she was involved in the investigation. Arndt and other officers involved in the Ramsey murder investigation were widely criticized in the media. She asserts that these criticisms were false and harmed her reputation. The letter stated that: [N]o one within the Department has made any effort of which we are aware to stand behind Linda publicly. By a continuous series of statements about one thing or another that she supposedly did that are simply false. Def.'s Ex. Based on the fact that she was prevented by the gag order from publicly responding to the allegedly false and harmful media statements about her.
	OPINION/ORDER Flaskamp had to serve a four year probationary period before she was eligible for tenure.
	99-5130 -- FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I-011 -- 10/04/2000 Circuit Judges.
	OPINION/ORDER The areas to be inspected were a residential dock and adjacent areas located on tidal wetlands off the rear portion of Palmieri's backyard. Palmieri's claim is one essentially sounding in trespass quare clausum fregit that has escalated into a constitutional claim of Fourth Amendment violations only because the trespassers were representatives of a state government regulatory agency. Entry of these state actors was responsive to Palmieri's desire to obtain a necessary permit to conduct construction work on his property. That the agents were dispatched by Palmieri within minutes of their entry and that no damage was done might have justified the disposition of this case by application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Because of the 1 John Doe #1 is presumably the intern who accompanied Lynch on her inspection. We are constrained to undertake the more elaborate analysis that follows. The property is situated on Long Island's Great South Bay and encompasses both New York State regulated tidal wetlands and a regulated adjacent area.
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are not in dispute. The statute allows the GDOC to obtain an incarcerated felon's DNA sample felony and incarcerated in a state correctional facility shall at the time of entering the prison system have a sample of his or her blood. Who currently is incarcerated in a state correctional facility in this state for such offense. Who is incarcerated in a private correctional facility in this state for such offense pursuant to a contract with the Department of Corrections upon entering the facility. Who is incarcerated in a private correctional facility in this state pursuant to contract with the Department of Corrections. Inmates that refuse to submit to the procedure are subjected to disciplinary reports followed by hearings and possible disciplinary action. 2 and counsel was appointed. Padgett was later dismissed from the action and is not a party to this appeal. He was later dismissed from the action and is not a party to this appeal. 4 2 it is unreasonably vague.
	98-9518 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM. -- 08/18/1999 222 and are impermissible because they violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is seductive for us to view this as just another case of reviewing agency action. This case is a harbinger of difficulties encountered in this age of exploding information. Administrative interpretation is at the heart of our responsibility. Which was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At issue here are the FCC's regulations clarifying the privacy requirements for CPNI.
	OPINION/ORDER 1 we hold that there was no constitutional violation in this case. Hawkins) believed that an employee was embezzling from the company that the Hawkinses co owned. Fogley also notified Sylvester that the ASP was going to investigate allegations made by Mr. Hawkins while Sylvester was on duty. Hawkins was deceptive. When Sylvester was informed of the polygraph results. Hawkins explained that the documents that Sylvester was requesting were at her office and that she could deliver those documents to Sylvester at his house after work. The prosecutor wrote a letter to the ASP that included the following statement: Obviously the State is not in a position to proceed with the prosecution of this case based upon Mr. Sylvester's actions were not only grossly improper. They culminated in the dismissal of a case where a victim was essentially robbed of $300. While that is unfortunate. We trust that his professionalism and willingness to seek justice will override any ulterior motive or personal feeling that may develop in a case.
	OPINION/ORDER Filed an amended complaint in federal court in which he alleged:
	OPINION/ORDER Hey Maestre was on brief. Garcia were on brief. We recount the undisputed facts in the light most congenial to the appellants and adopt their version of any contested facts which are material to our consideration of the issues. The Executive Communications Center (the Center) is located in the penthouse of the PRTC's office complex in Guaynabo. It does not have primary corporate responsibility for 1To the extent that other parties are involved in this litigation for example. Access to the Center is restricted. Both the elevator foyer on the penthouse floor and the doors to the Center itself are inaccessible without a control card. The Center is staffed around the clock. The work space is completely open and no individual employee has an assigned office. The surveillance is exclusively visual. The cameras have no microphones or other immediate eavesdropping capability. A video recorder are located in the office of the Center's general manager. The videotapes are stored there. It is undisputed that no one can view either the monitor or the completed tapes without Rodriguez Diaz's express permission.
	99-5130 -- FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I-011 -- 07/31/2000 Are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established law that the grading practice violated FERPA. Falvo is the mother of Elizabeth. Falvo learned that a number of her children's teachers would sometimes have their students grade one another's work assignments and tests and then would have the students call out their own grades to the teacher. Although Falvo was told that her children always had the option of confidentially reporting their grades to the teacher. When Falvo's children were in the sixth. Arguing the court should have granted relief in favor of Philip Pletan on the Fourteenth Amendment claim because. Summary judgment is appropriate
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Arizona's 1989 version of the statute was first held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in 1992. The court enjoined enforcement of the statute on the grounds that the medical procedure provision was unconstitutionally vague. The definition of medical emergency was unconstitutionally narrow. The court held that two provisions were unconstitutionally vague: the requirement that a request for judicial authorization for abortion without parental consent be determined
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	OPINION/ORDER Both times Ohio State Highway Patrol (
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him.
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
	OPINION/ORDER O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellants Jorge G mez Olarte and Alejandro Rojano Rangel. Were on brief for appellee. I I The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to the government. 1 were on board a forty three foot sports fisherman. All appellants are Colombian nationals. They were intercepted by the U.S.S. BIDDLE was charged with boarding northbound vessels of less than four hundred feet as part of the government's drug interdiction program. BIDDLE were to conduct the boardings and investigations.3 Following standard procedure. Was acquitted at trial. 2 The parties stipulated that the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 3 Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 379(a) (Supp. 1992). They also conducted a so called space accountability search to ensure that the vessel was not compartmentalized secretly for smuggling. Stated that Roberto de Armas owned the vessel and that appellants were employed to bring the boat from Colombia to St. No contraband was discovered. (2) that appellants were from a known drug source country.
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER Appellee Clallam County's motion for clarification of opinion is GRANTED. Appearing at 382 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) are hereby AMENDED. Judge Gould would have granted the petition. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Because it was clearly established under Washington law at the time of the arrest that recording a police officer in the performance of his public duties was not a violation of the Privacy Act and it was unreasonable for Chief Nelson to believe otherwise. We hold that the Chief is not entitled to qualified immunity. Because Chief Nelson could not have had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications by others over the police radio dispatch system. Which was the basis for his Privacy Act arrest of Johnson. Summary judgment was not warranted on any ground relied upon by the district court. Johnson was videotaping several of his friends at Sequim's public skateboard park when he noticed Chief Nelson drive up to the park in his patrol vehicle.
	OPINION/ORDER The statute the judge may declare him guilty and impose the punishment otherwise provided by law. directs the court to dismiss the case and expunge the defendant's record if he
	OPINION/ORDER Because it was clearly established under Washington law at the time of the arrest that recording a police officer in the performance of his public duties was not a violation of the Privacy Act and it was unreasonable for Chief Nelson to believe otherwise. We hold that the Chief is not entitled to qualified immunity. Because Chief Nelson could not have had any reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications by others over the police radio dispatch system. Which was the basis for his Privacy Act arrest of Johnson. Summary judgment was not warranted on any ground relied upon by the district court. Johnson was videotaping several of his friends at Sequim's public skateboard park when he noticed Chief Nelson drive up to the park in his patrol vehicle. Who was on duty and had come to the park to look for a missing juvenile. Stopped his patrol car in the park's parking lot about seventy five feet away from where Johnson was standing on an elevated cement ramp. Chief Nelson's police radio
	OPINION/ORDER Those officials had violated his constitutional rights.[fn1] Holding that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity because the law in this area was unsettled in our circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. Plaintiff Polyns Bieregu is incarcerated at the federal prison in Fairton. The federal regulatory framework for handling prisoner mail is straightforward. Incoming special mail must be marked
	UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO There is no doubt that Messrs. The Defendants contend that this warrant was supported by data and opinions drawn from the results of a warrantless thermal scan of their home. Probable cause to support the warrant was lacking. The district court was not swayed by the Defendants' reasoning and denied the motion to suppress. The windows set into this wall were blocked from visual observation by a large camper shell leaning against the wall of the garage. That the number and location of these
	OPINION/ORDER Richard Moreno and his companion Joe Rodriguez were on their way to a meeting at St. Who was riding in the passenger seat. Deputy Banks entered their names into a computer inside the patrol car and asked the men whether they were on parole. Moreno admitted that he was. Moreno heard one of the deputies tell the other that Rodriguez was
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
	OPINION/ORDER The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2)
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to determine whether the City of Wilmington's method of testing firefighters for drug use violates their rights under the Fourth Amendment. We will affirm the district court's conclusion that it does not. 1. We will remand the case for reconsideration of the state law invasion of privacy claim. Michael Danylo and Cornelius Skinner are Wilmington firefighters. The defendants are the City of Wilmington. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants on the ground that they were entitled to qualified immunity and in favor of the SODAT defendants on the ground that SODAT was not a state actor. That reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment was an issue of law. Concluding that there were no remaining factual issues for the jury to decide. The firefighters have appealed on several grounds. They dispute the district court's conclusion that direct observation of urine collection is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs contend that the district court committed error when it presumed that the reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was equivalent to the reasonable person standard under Delaware tort law.2 We will reject all the plaintiffs' grounds for appeal except for the fifth one.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the statement was taken in violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of his entitlement to Miranda warnings under the Fifth Amendment. Bowdich's subsequent investigation led him to believe that
	OPINION/ORDER Also paid out claims to tens of thousands of individuals whose structures were insured under FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. After questions were raised concerning how 2 individual disaster assistance was disbursed in one Florida county following one of the hurricanes. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that disclosure of both the names and the addresses was exempt under Exemption 6. At issue today is whether FEMA has established that the names and addresses of 1.3 million individuals who applied for aid or made insurance claims after one of 31 federally declared disasters are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. We conclude that the addresses are not exempt under Exemption 6 because FEMA has failed to meet its heavy burden of showing a 3
	OPINION/ORDER Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice
	OPINION/ORDER Was invited back to work conditioned on a psychiatric examination and his release of past medical records. Wrote to Buganski that O'Connor was ill with chest pain. As the investigation was nearing O'Connor remained suspended with completion in late October. O'Connor is doing well from a cardiac standpoint and. I am extremely concerned about his severe anxiety and worry that this will affect his health problems. Have to work with the administration to improve his performance. Assistant Superintendent Buganski wrote to O'Connor that
	UNITED STATES V. GECAS This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002260.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were properly dismissed. Trulock was demoted within the DOE. He was ultimately forced out in 1999. Which published an excerpt in an edition that was circulated in early July of 2000. Although the complaint states that they were armed. Conrad was able to receive two incoming telephone calls. One of which was from Trulock. The complaint implies that Conrad was not at liberty to leave the conference room. To place a call in private) or that the agents told her that she was not free to terminate the interview and leave. The complaint does not allege that the agents claimed to have a search warrant. That she was fearful. Where Trulock was waiting. Was also necessary. When the search was over. Was insufficient to permit the search of Trulock's private computer files. Each Defendant also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity on both counts. Were entitled to qualified immunity. The complaint presents no indications that the actions by the defendants were other than a good faith effort to determine whether classified information was being unlawfully possessed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8C634C77CA7EC26288256F2B005855BB/$file/0335294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Insisting that a biased jury that was convened for a trial in an improper venue convicted him after considering impermissible hearsay evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. MOORE 14433 I We set forth first John Casey's testimony about how his wife was shot and died. Rosemary Casey was shot by a bullet fired from John Casey's semiautomatic .30 06 caliber hunting rifle. John Casey decided to oil his rifle by spraying Break Free oil down the barrel because the barrel was rusty. After placing a piece of cardboard and some rags over a garbage can which served as a makeshift workspace he planned to use to clean the gun John Casey moved the slide on the rifle back and no shell ejected or was visible. John Casey told the jury that while he held a rag over the rifle's action (to catch the cleaning solvent as it was forced through the barrel). His key defensive testimony was that he then unintentionally touched the trigger. She was later flown to Seattle for treatment but. Made it impossible for him to have a fair trial there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="209"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/291947A4B3B3EFF588256C7E00151B67/$file/0056141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their claims are not at issue here. 1 O'CONNOR v. Establishes a federal standard that governs when delayed discovery of a plaintiff's claims will toll the statute of limitations. Whether CERCLA applies here turns on whether CERCLA's federal standard is more generous than California law in tolling California's one year statute of limitations. Which postpones the start of the limitations period until a plaintiff suspects or should have suspected their claims. The state and federal standards were the same. The district court held that Plaintiffs' claims were untimely because. Plaintiffs suspected or should have suspected the cause of their illnesses more than a year before they filed their claims. We hold that (1) the district court erred in concluding that the federal and California standards are the same. Summary judgment was 8 O'CONNOR v. BOEING NORTH AMERICAN improper because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Plaintiffs knew or should have known of their claims within the limitations period. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-8056.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO<BR></A><BR> Detective Bohlig concluded that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana for sale in the basement of their rented residence. Defendants stated to the landlord that a grow light in the basement's furnace room was used to grow fresh vegetables. Power company reports indicated that the residence was consuming twice the amount of electricity as similar structures in the area. The electrician also reported that the use of power equipment to provide electricity to an alleged sound stage placed over the basement's indoor swimming pool was inconsistent with existing wiring. Defendants were operating a generator in the garage of the residence purportedly to provide supplemental electricity for musical equipment in the basement. Though no such equipment was ever observed. A thermal imager scan of the residence indicated that Defendants were emitting high levels of heat from the residence. Detective Bohlig concluded in his affidavit that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana in the basement's swimming pool. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="207"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012574P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury was given a single charge for both federal and state claims. Hill was arrested for public intoxication while walking home from a bar in Nevada. Her blood alcohol content was measured at .306 g/dL. Michael Miller and Jennifer Holmes were on duty at the jail when a police officer. Who is not a defendant in this action. Hill was uncooperative during the booking process. Written jail policy states that prisoners placed in the padded cell are not allowed to wear normal clothing but instead must wear a paper gown or nothing at all. Hill claims that she was not offered the gown and that Miller observed her remove her clothing. Hill was naked while in the padded cell. She was quiet. Miller and Holmes claim that they were concerned that Hill was going to hurt herself. The defendants claim that the decision was made for Hill's safety and that they decided to make the move at that time in part because the transfer required a greater number of guards than were on duty for each shift. The practice was to do so without regard to the prisoner's state of dress. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="206"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the first amicus curiae is corrected to read </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/200412354.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> York ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="205"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> If there is a right of access. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="205"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1626.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. The <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="204"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA1A9E9FF00EE458825734700517E52/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1793p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is the continuing vitality of our opinion in International Bhd. of Elec. Monitors </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0008p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Byerley violated Dean's First Amendment rights during a confrontation that occurred while Dean was picketing in front of Byerley's residence. We also reach the issue of whether Byerley is entitled to an immunity defense. Dean expressed concern that it was incomplete and explained that he was unable to recall the addresses of all of his prior residences. Dean further alleges that while he and the hired individuals were picketing near Byerley's residence. [Byerley] then stated that he was going to have [Dean] arrested for picketing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45541E10F4A11DAC88256E5A00707B21/$file/0010149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/443a0db2ecc5d4a188256a45005d38da/$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-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/953537P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government was not liable in civil damages. Who were later granted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/45541e10f4a11dac88256e5a00707b21/$FILE/0010149.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkins appeals from the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of the warrantless stop of his truck as he was about to leave McClellan Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/443A0DB2ECC5D4A188256A45005D38DA/$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-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).2 A first 2 We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21927B11E3B07C88825717F0076B726/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="202"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1275.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Straub and Straub & Meyers were on joint brief for appellees Chelmsford School Committee. Susan Wunsch and Massachusetts Civil Liberties Union Foundation were on brief for appellees Michael Gilchrist and Judith Hass. The plaintiffs are two minors TORRUELLA. The minors allege that they were compelled to attend an indecent AIDS and sex education program conducted at their public high school by defendant Hot. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are Chelmsford High School students Jason P. Both students were fifteen years old at the time. The Program was staged by defendant Suzi Landolphi ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D27B9B4187120E288256C39007A4509/$file/0015594.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over Plaintiffs' timely appeal of the district court's judgment. Were each asked to analyze 623 pap smear slides. 1 Cytotechnologists are lab technicians that analyze pap smear slides. Which was not singled out by name. Said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That gender was not a bona fide occupational qualification (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="201"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/6d27b9b4187120e288256c39007a4509/$FILE/0015594.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over Plaintiffs' timely appeal of the district court's judgment. Were each asked to analyze 623 pap smear slides. 1 Cytotechnologists are lab technicians that analyze pap smear slides. Which was not singled out by name. Said that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991319.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5107a.html">PFEIFFER JACK V. CIA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2579.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6E61E2925B9DC6E788256FF0007309AE/$file/0315890.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 2596. When a medical examination is conducted at the proper time and in the proper manner. Or that an employer is foreclosed from refusing to hire an applicant who does. The panel judges have voted to deny appellee's petition for panel rehearing. Judges Graber and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be considered. Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="200"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A97A6EECB2FE5F588256FBA0006D994/$file/0315890.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who all have the human immunodeficiency virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972512.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The policy was intended to encourage pregnant women whose urine tested positive for cocaine use to obtain substance abuse counseling. Ten women who were tested pursuant to the policy. The parties evidently agree that only injunctive relief is being sought against those individual Appellees who are state officers sued in their official capacities. Brown was concerned about a perceived rise in cocaine use among pregnant women and the consequences for the health of the users' children. A task force was formed that included Nurse Brown. The Solicitor informed the participants that because a viable fetus was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0466p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> White was sentenced to death. (8) whether White's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated by the introduction at trial of statements made by White during a competency evaluation. (9) whether White was entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing in district court. Was believable as an impartial juror was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Told her that he was not going to his job at Kroger's warehouse. White was intoxicated and wanted to be left alone. He began screaming at his mother after she asked him to quiet down because she was concerned that someone might call the police due to the noise. White was afraid of a confrontation with the police because he was on probation for carrying a concealed weapon and believed that the police had harassed him on prior occasions. While White was struggling with a clip for a gun. Trooper Gross called in the car's license plate number and learned that the car was registered to White and that White did not have driving privileges due to a prior drunk driving conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3197.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Park University) was sued in a state court class action by JC Hauling Company (JC Hauling) for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E53F2E57F7A3CB9E88256EDD0052164F/$file/0230301.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The final sentence of the second full paragraph on slip op. 2878 that reads. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Buying or selling a minor with knowledge the minor will be portrayed as engaging or appearing to engage in sex acts. § 943.0435(1)(a)(1).1 Further. Anyone moving to Florida who has been convicted of similar crimes or has been designated as a sex offender in another state will also be considered a sex offender in Florida. § 943.0435(1)(a)(2) (3). The sex offender must </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individuals on probation and supervised release who have committed certain qualifying offenses. While Paul Sczubelek was on supervised release. Sczubelek appealed on the grounds that the collection of a DNA sample is an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. We conclude first of all that this case is not moot. While Sczubelek was still serving his term of supervised release. The court issued a summons based on a violation of a condition of his release and the delay between the expiration of his term and the adjudication of the violation is </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/2003/07/01-5098.htm">01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR> Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="196"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-4005.htm">00-4005 -- LIVSEY V. SALT LAKE COUNTY -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were infringed by a statement by Potter published in a local newspaper about the sexual behavior of a deceased member of the plaintiffs' family and by the County's failure to grant the plaintiffs' request for a name clearing hearing for the decedent. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Singleton initially claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for his knowledge of the police chief's allegedly improper purchase of an automobile. Singleton was discharged After discovery revealed that 2 because his wife and daughter had plotted to frame the police chief. Della Price were elected members of the City of Advance's city council. Was not a named defendant. The City of Advance did not have a written employment agreement with Singleton. Singleton's employment was terminable at will. This statement was recorded by private investigator David George. Singleton learned that the defendants' sole reason for their action was the recording of Joann Singleton plotting to bribe the chief of police. As an employee at will under Missouri law. Singleton did not have a liberty or property interest in his employment sufficient to implicate procedural due process rights. Was engaging in improper conduct by conspiring to bribe the Chief of Police. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="194"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4135.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mr. Holding that the district court was correct in its determination that Mr. Callahan's constitutional rights were violated. Incorrect in its determination that these rights were not clearly established. The officers learned that he was intoxicated. They were unaware that he also had ingested methamphetamine. Worked out a signal for him to give the officers once the exchange was completed. After the deal was completed. After the four persons were on the floor. The officers did not have an arrest or search warrant at any time during these events. Callahan was charged with possession and distribution of methamphetamine. The trial court found that the evidence was admissible because the existence of exigent circumstances made the search reasonable despite the absence of a warrant. Arguing that the evidence would have been discovered inevitably. <hr> The court of appeals disagreed and applied the Attorney General's concession that there were no exigent circumstances. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-1362.htm">02-1362 -- ORTLIEB V. HOWERY -- 08/27/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff/appellant Annamarie Ortlieb appeals from the district court's<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963240.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.1 The contract also included the following terms and conditions: 1 All dates correspond with 1996 unless otherwise stated. 14) VEHICLE RETURN: Renter is responsible for returning the Vehicle in the same condition as when received. If it is not returned when due. Is illegally parked. Is used in violation of law or of this Agreement. Or if Renter provides false or misleading information at time of rental. 16) FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE: If the Vehicle is not returned when due or within 24 hours after written or oral demand by Budget. Renter will be in unlawful possession of the Vehicle. Written demand is considered delivered 48 hours after Budget mails a certified letter to Renter at the home or business address Renter provides at time of rental. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963240.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.1 The contract also included the following terms and conditions: 14) VEHICLE RETURN: Renter is responsible for returning the Vehicle in the same condition as when received. If it is not returned when due. Is illegally parked. Is used in violation of law or of this Agreement. Or if Renter provides false or misleading information at time of rental. 16) FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE: If the Vehicle is not returned when due or within 24 hours after written or oral demand by Budget. 1 All dates correspond with 1996 unless otherwise stated. 2 Renter will be in unlawful possession of the Vehicle. Written demand is considered delivered 48 hours after Budget mails a certified letter to Renter at the home or business address Renter provides at time of rental. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-3240.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (1/26/1998, NO. 96-3240)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="192"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-3240.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (1/26/1998, NO. 96-3240)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The primary issue in this case is whether appellant driver legitimately expected Fourth Amendment level privacy in an overdue rental car that the rental company had not repossessed at the time of law enforcement's warrantless search. The contract specified January 20 as the return due date and West Palm Beach as the return location.<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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-4036.htm">00-4036 -- STIDHAM V. PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Background</strong> <p> Appellant is a certified peace officer in the state of Utah. The state agency empowered to regulate the certification of peace officers employed in Utah.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="190"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1429.htm">03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004<BR></A><BR> The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.<a href= </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/247AD8E3195E2C4A88256ABF004D0A31/$file/9956131.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2106. Is a professional musician. Cusano was the lead guitarist for KISS from 1982 until 1984. During which time Cusano co authored and performed 1 Cusano's claims were: (1) open book account songwriter/publisher royalties. Defendants Simmons and Stanley were listed as creditors possessing contingent and disputed claims in an unknown amount. The plan was confirmed in 1990 and Cusano was released from bankruptcy in 1993. The coffee table book entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/022AF3550BC8603288256E5A00707CA7/$file/9956131.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2106. Is a professional musician. Cusano was the lead guitarist for KISS from 1982 until 1984. During which time Cusano co authored and performed 1 Cusano's claims were: (1) open book account songwriter/publisher royalties. Defendants Simmons and Stanley were listed as creditors possessing contingent and disputed claims in an unknown amount. The plan was confirmed in 1990 and Cusano was released from bankruptcy in 1993. The coffee table book entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001202P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blom was charged in federal court with being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). He was charged in state court with the kidnapping and murder of Poirier. Though Moose Lake is in northeastern Minnesota. Much of the media coverage was statewide. His federal indictment on July 8 was well publicized. Was charged with murder and kidnapping in state court. Rests exclusively on the quantum of publicity that his State and Federal Court charges have received. [Blom's] argument is indistinguishable from that presented to the Supreme Court. Which the Court determined was insufficient to establish a denial of due process. Whose credibility the jurors chosen in this case will presumably have an opportunity to evaluate for themselves. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1277a.html">WARSHAWSKY & CO V. NLRB<BR></A><BR> With <p> him on the briefs was <i>John N. With him on the <p> <p> <p> brief were <i>Linda Sher</i>. McGann</i> argued the cause for intervenor. <p> With him on the brief was <i>Travis J. We grant the petition.<p> <p> <b>I</b>. <p> <p> Warshawsky (the Company) sells automobile parts and <p> accessories and is currently constructing a warehouse and <p> mail order facility in LaSalle. The union stopped later that day after being told <p> that Automotion was not yet working at the site. <p> <p> <p> that any subsequent picketing of Automotion should be con <p> ducted only when Automotion was working on the site: Mon <p> day through Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. Various union <p> agents stationed themselves in close proximity to the LaSalle <p> site on a road that was used primarily by persons going to <p> and from the site. The site itself was not open to members of <p> the general public. INC. <p> IS <u>DESTROYING</u> <p> THE STANDARD OF <p> WAGES FOR <p> HARD WORKING <p> UNION MEMBERS <p> <p> <p> AUTOMOTION. INC.<p> PAYS SUBSTANDARD<p> WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS.<p> IGNORING THE AREA STANDARDS<p> THREATENS THE EFFORTS AND SACRIFICES<p> OF ALL UNION MEMBERS.<p> <p> <p> <p> Iron Workers Local 386 is currently engaged in a labor dispute concerning the<p> failure of Automotion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-1277a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was John N. With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief was Travis J. I. Warshawsky (the Company) sells automobile parts and accessories and is currently constructing a warehouse and mail order facility in LaSalle. The union stopped later that day after being told that Automotion was not yet working at the site. That any subsequent picketing of Automotion should be con ducted only when Automotion was working on the site: Mon day through Friday from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m. Various union agents stationed themselves in close proximity to the LaSalle site on a road that was used primarily by persons going to and from the site. The site itself was not open to members of the general public. IS DESTROYING THE STANDARD OF WAGES FOR HARD WORKING UNION MEMBERS AUTOMOTION. Iron Workers Local 386 is currently engaged in a labor dispute concerning the failure of Automotion. We are appealing only to the general public. We are not seeking any person to cease work or to stop making deliveries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="189"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was convicted in the state courts of Ohio on two counts of aggravated murder with firearm specification under Ohio Rev. His appeal raises four issues: (1) whether appellant was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights through the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence against him at trial. (3) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence hearsay statements. (4) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of prosecutorial 1 The defendant was found guilty of one count of murder in the death of Charles Sponhaltz with firearm specification and one count of aggravated murder of Steven Vargo with two capital specifications. 2 and 4 involved no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the admission of the hearsay statement in issue 3 was harmless. Steven Vargo and Charles Sponhaltz were found dead on a rural road in Belmont County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3995_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are charities that Indiana's Telephone Privacy Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="188"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0759p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kim was convicted in the district court of possessing with the intent to distribute six kilograms of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 300 months. As this is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reject Kim's arguments and will affirm the conviction and the sentence imposed. I. Kim is a thirty nine year old adult male. He was born in Korea but subsequently immigrated with his family to the United States at the age of seventeen. Which is at issue in this appeal. Law enforcement officials believed that this route was employed by drug dealers to traffick drugs from Los Angeles back to the eastern area. Was involved in several prior investigations and searches on the train in an effort to interdict drugs. Was located in a busy area of the train. It was only ten feet from the entrance to the sleeper car. Youn was inside with Kim. Small activated a concealed recorder to record any conversation that he may have with the occupants of the roomette. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Dillard was arrested by the Cleveland Police Department (CPD) in connection with a drug sale. Were arrested. The officers also discovered that the Suburban was registered to Arion Holton of 12815 Iroquois Avenue. At the front of the building there were a porch. The testimony at the suppression hearing did not establish whether there was a doorbell. Testified at the hearing that the front door was always locked. The door to James's apartment was on the right side of the hallway. On the left side there was a door that led to a stairway to the second floor. James testified that this door was also always locked. At the top of the stairway was the door to Holton's and Dillard's apartment. James testified that there was no lock on the door to the actual apartment. The door to the stairway on the left was also open. Holton appeared </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/984112P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of an ordinance of the City of Lincoln. The District Court1 held that the ordinance was facially invalid because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. I. The plaintiffs are four individuals who have engaged in demonstrations opposing abortion in the vicinity of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Lincoln. The plaintiffs believe that abortion is wrong. The plaintiffs have engaged in protests and demonstrations on the public sidewalk that adjoins the church. Crabb is Unfit to be an Elder. Other protesters (not the plaintiffs) have demonstrated near the church with other kinds of signs. The opinion of the District Court is reported at 23 F. Legislative Intent and Findings. (a) It is the intent of this ordinance to preserve the peace at religious premises in order to protect and secure several significant and compelling interests of this city. Focused picketing disrupts and endangers or outright destroys individual freedom of religion. (e) The mechanism of such injury to individual freedom of religion operates as follows: infants and young children are emotionally vulnerable to focused picketing in close proximity to them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1567p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are here asked to decide whether a victim of a privately executed wiretap can successfully move to quash a subpoena duces tecum directing the perpetrator of the wiretap to convey recordings of unlawfully intercepted communications to a grand jury. We will reverse the district court and remand with orders that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed. We will not refer to the parties by their proper names. We will also limit our recitation of the facts to the minimum necessary to explain and resolve the issues presented. The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellant intervenor John Doe 1 is the target of a federal grand jury investigation (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.REH.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. 2275 n.6 (1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0421n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The police contacted the rental car agency and requested confirmation as to whether Eden was an authorized driver. The transaction for which Eden was pulled over was completed. The police then further detained Eden until more information could be obtained regarding whether she was an authorized driver of the rental vehicle. Learning that she was not. The officer twice told Eden that she was free to leave and twice told her to gather her belongings from the vehicle. Declined to have the police transport her and began walking down the highway. Arguing that the search was illegal. The search was not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. To which she responded that he was 2 her husband.1 Upon further questioning by Officer Polich. Eden indicated that her husband had rented the vehicle and that he was in Missoula. Was driving to Missoula that night to meet her husband. Officer Polich returned to the vehicle and informed Eden that she would have to post a $40.00 cash bond for the speeding violation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-6097.htm">01-6097 -- U.S. V. ANGEVINE -- 02/22/2002<BR></A><BR> This computer was networked with other University computers and in turn was linked to computers around the world via the Internet. Professor Angevine also submitted a motion arguing the search warrant used to seize the computer was invalid because police recklessly omitted material information in their application affidavit. The district court held a <em>Franks</em> hearing was unnecessary since police did not need a search warrant to seize the University computer. The policy maintains </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="187"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021178.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. The officers have appealed that ruling. Is nevertheless of significant importance. Because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable. The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. As they are the nonmovants in this action. Defendants Nelson Moxley and Bobby Ray Perdue are and were at all times relevant to this opinion employed by High Point as animal control officers. Moxley and Perdue were charged with enforcing the various High Point ordinances governing dogs. The ordinance defines </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="186"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962164.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 5/13/98 is vacated. As the event's organizers were beginning plans for the motorcycle rally. Captain Doug Horton of the SDPS was informed that organizers expected up to 3500 participants. Sought Horton out and advised him that an unidentified friend at work had told McKinney that an unidentified person had reported to McKinney's friend that a confrontation at the Rally between the Hell's Angel and Pagan gangs was planned. Horton was further advised that gang members could not be visually identified because it was planned that they would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0393p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The agency seeking access is the Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0339p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The central issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated when a police officer investigates an automobile license plate number using a law enforcement computer database. Was idling in the lane closest to the stores. The LEIN search revealed that the vehicle was registered to Curtis Ellison. Officer Keeley followed the van until his back up was nearby. He advised the driver that he was being stopped for parking in a fire lane and asked for license. At this time the passenger stated that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Keeley notified Ellison that he was being arrested on the outstanding warrant. Two firearms were found. Coleman was released with a warning about parking in a fire lane. Ellison was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court made a factual finding that the van was not parked illegally. The officer did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check of Ellison's license plate. As the government has certified that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material to the proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4162_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allege that they have been stalked and harassed unjustifiably by Edward Krieger. Was responsible for the Deputy's actions. We agree with the district court that the Fourth Amendment claim is meritless and hold that it was properly dismissed. We believe that the pleading requirements of Rule 8 have been satisfied but that the claim fails on the merits. Robert Alty is a police officer for the City of Belvidere. Sat in his police car outside of businesses that the plaintiffs were visiting in an effort to cause the couple </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="185"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961563P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was denied a discharge for various infractions. The trustee had The case was dismissed on April located only eighteen dollars in assets. Following an investigation by the IDORF that was based at least in part on the information it received from the IRS. Taylor was convicted. The motion was granted on August 3. So we are faced only with the question whether the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Federal tax </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0269p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment to the state of Michigan in a putative class action case that challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the State's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The plaintiff represents one of two proposed classes of individuals who were assigned to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60CD1611D2C6D243882571C40000B85A/$file/0530177.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Is located in Bozeman. One of Softich's duties at Frontline was to monitor employee use of the workplace computers including their Internet access. The offending sites were accessed from a computer in the office of Appellant Jeffrey Brian Ziegler. Softich also informed Kennedy that the IT department had already placed a monitor on Ziegler's computer to record its Internet traffic by copying its cache files.3 A firewall is a piece of </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are an organization called </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0398p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Received his Bachelor's degree in education in 1997 and was subsequently certified to teach elementary education. Barrett was scheduled to be interviewed for a full time teaching position with Steubenville City Schools. From the time that he was in kindergarten. Barrett was interviewed by Steubenville City Schools administrators. A teacher who had not substituted with Steubenville City Schools was hired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="184"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972609.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of the prerequisites for obtaining a concealed handgun permit under the North Carolina Concealed Handgun Statute is completion of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414820.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are required to accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. They are currently raising two children: one child is the couple's biological daughter. The other child is an adopted son. The Behrenses are unable to have 2 any more biological children. While Behrens was carrying his adopted son. Who was nine months old at the time. The DCF was notified of possible child abuse. Civil dependency and criminal investigations were initiated. The criminal investigation was closed because the alleged abuse was determined to be unfounded and/or accidental. Finding that child abuse was not shown by a preponderance of the evidence.1 Despite the closure of the criminal investigation and the circuit court's finding. Florida courts have explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002247.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 12 the reference to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CBB7658AA229E4A88256E5A00707CA0/$file/0016494.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge Silverman Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC0CCCB40EB0AD9088256ABE005B1763/$file/0016494.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge Silverman Defendant Roderick Hickman was erroneously named as Rodney Hickman. *The Honorable Myron H. We conclude that the right to procreate survives incarceration and that the factually unsupported arguments put forth by the Warden as legitimate penological reasons to restrict Gerber's exercise of his right to procreate are insufficient to justify dismissal of the complaint. I. BACKGROUND1 This case concerns a life term prisoner's effort to have a child by artificially inseminating his wife. Artificial insemination is a noncoital process in which semen is collected from a man under laboratory conditions and then introduced into a woman's body with a needleless hypodermic syringe at a favorable time in her ovulation cycle. 202 (1997) (noting a conservative estimate that there have been more than 500. Gerber was sentenced to 100 years to life imprisonment plus eleven years pursuant to California's three strikes law. He is constrained in employing the usual methods for achieving this goal because he is a life term prisoner incarcerated in California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="183"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-8057.htm">96-8057 -- PIPPINGER V. RUBIN -- 11/05/1997<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Appellant John Pippinger was temporarily suspended from his job as an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4DBFB2E5A537D6F588256D4B0080AA87/$file/0135141.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since taping police officers during the performance of their public duties is not illegal under the Washington Privacy Act. The charge was dismissed by a state court. Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and had probable cause for the arrest. The jury was instructed that state law clearly established at the time of the incident did not bar the type of recording for which Alford was arrested. The area was dark and deserted and he pulled over to offer assistance. The motorists told Haner that they believed Alford was a police officer. Because Haner was concerned that Alford was pretending to be a police officer. Haner noticed that Alford's license plate was nearly unreadable because of a tinted license plate cover. Haner asked Alford about the wig wag headlights and Alford responded that they were part of an alarm system that had been installed that day. Was unable to activate the lights. Informed Alford that he was under arrest for making an illegal tape recording. HANER 8369 cause to arrest Alford was based solely on his view that Alford had violated the Privacy Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR> Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov97/96-8057.wpd.html">PIPPINGER V. RUBIN<BR></A><BR> Rubin is the Secretary of the United States Treasury. Plaintiff Appellant John Pippinger was temporarily suspended from his job as an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 1 coming to investigate. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 2 In November of 1983. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under Johnson v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 2 1 parking lot. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 3 2 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the Spivey enumerated twenty four claims before the district court. In particular portions of medical records which were relied on by Spivey's psychiatric expert. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/88-3945.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. Jr. is a Florida prison inmate. Florida.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/88-3945.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. Jr. is a Florida prison inmate. Florida.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR> Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-10231.man.html">ROE V. AWARE WOMAN CTR. FOR CHOICE (6/8/2001, NO. 00-10231)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/122921B5CBDA4EDB88256E530056C525/$file/0230301.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Piedad Barajas Avalos was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and attempting to manufacture and manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of imprisonment for 360 months. BarajasAvalos contends that the facts relied upon by the magistrate judge in issuing the warrant were derived from earlier observations made by law enforcement officers by means of an UNITED STATES v. He also asserts that the sentence imposed by the court is cruel and unusual punishment because he is not a recidivist felon. We affirm the sentence of 360 months because we conclude it was not grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed by Mr. Methyl Sulfonyl Methane ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-10231.man.html">ROE V. AWARE WOMAN CTR. FOR CHOICE (6/8/2001, NO. 00-10231)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612614.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are executive level officials at the Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/952476P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> From June 1989 to August 1989 Tokar is an HIV positive individual. and again from September 1991 to November 1991. He was an inmate at the Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) housed in The Honorable Scott O. A segregated unit for HIV positive inmates.2 Armontrout was warden of JCCC from January 2. Drennen was the hospital administrator of JCCC from November 2. Trickey was the department's director of classification and treatment from October 15. He also alleged that conditions of confinement in the unit violated his Eighth Amendment The action was stayed After the stay was lifted. The court held that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court held that appellees were not entitled to qualified immunity on Tokar's conditions of confinement claims and allowed Tokar to restate his claims. Among other things Tokar alleged he Tokar was an inmate in JCCC from June 15. Tokar continued to live in Unit Six for some time after it was desegregated. 2 2 had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because the unit had broken windows. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/014363p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seven year old Megan Kanka was abducted. The Court construed the notification provisions to require a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="180"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6128.htm">00-6128 -- EARLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 03/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="179"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/966A73E8103317D888257170007C7F87/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have unanimously determined not to do so and hereby reaffirm our decision filed on November 2. Appellants are parents of schoolchildren in the Palmdale School District. The petition raises three arguments: (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/005244.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court and this Court have been adjudicating appellants' various challenges to the dissemination of sex offender notices in New Jersey under what has popularly become known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7DCEF53D22C65A5882570AD0050FD8E/$file/0299002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a sixty six year old paraplegic on California's death row. Daniels was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of police officers Dennis Doty and Phil Trust. Daniels was sentenced to death on January 31. It is necessary to first review the events surrounding a bank robbery Daniels committed in 1980. Daniels was shot nine times by police officers. Daniels was rendered a paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. On the same day Daniels was sentenced. Although Daniels's physical distress was somewhat lessened. Roth was disturbed by Daniels's psychological condition and expression of suicidal thoughts. Daniels was released on bond. He was beaten. Daniels was ordered to surrender to custody. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Officers Doty and Trust were sent to arrest Daniels at the residence of James Cornish. They were shown to Daniels's bedroom by his caretaker. Cornish's infant son were in the house at the time. While Ross was assisting Daniels with getting dressed. Doty was lying on the floor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="178"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1765.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Carta & Edelberg were on brief for respondents Ariel and Enrique Gutierrez. Arroyo Alejandro was on brief. It is important to note the narrowness of the government's position: it does not contend that the judge has any actual bias or prejudice in this case and it does not seek her recusal under 28 U.S.C. 144 (1994). Thereby creating the illusion that the latter loans were performing well. The government alleges that one object of the scheme which supposedly persisted for almost the entire decade between 1980 and 1990 was to stave off regulatory intervention and keep Mu¤oz and S nchez in power. The record is tenebrous as to whether Mr. Cerezo's checking account was overdrawn. The loan contract and related documents were signed by Mr. Somohano sent a copy of the second letter to Judge Cerezo at the Cerezos' home address because he was concerned that. She might not have been aware that the loan even existed. Cerezo informed Caguas that he did not have liquid funds sufficient to repay the debt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1383.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2483.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0238p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shamaeizadeh was indicted for federal drug violations. The charges were dismissed after the district court suppressed the evidence seized from the basement of the residence. Shamaeizadeh argues that he is entitled to damages for the following reasons: (1) the second and third warrantless searches were unconstitutional. (2) there was no probable cause for either Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. (6) he was maliciously prosecuted. Officer Mark Wiles ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="177"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2032.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Franco</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The district court granted the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of the claims under federal law.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="176"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-5233a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the appellee. Tomasel lo raises several challenges on appeal: (1) he is entitled under the Privacy Act to $1. (2) damages under the Privacy Act are not limited to pecuniary losses. (4) the pre November 1991 discrimination claims should have been tried by the jury as part of a continuing violation. (5) the hostile work environ ment and constructive discharge claims should have been submitted to the jury. In 1984 Tomasello was investigated for allegedly associat ing with members of the Mafia. He was better qualified than Dowd and McArdle had once referred to Dowd as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28AF2992A70DD0B18825724C0059FD84/$file/0515293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is a challenge. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed the complaint on that ground alone. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Fleck is a for profit corporation that operates Flex. The club limits access to adults who have purchased </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-7239a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Le vine were on the briefs. Spitzer were on the brief. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for the United States of America as amicus curiae. Ordinance that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had held was constitutional. Act bars unmarried and unemanci pated persons 1 under seventeen years old from being in 1 Although the curfew law is entitled the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F7F66434ED9D1A8882571ED00574EE3/$file/0455819.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the ordinance is not unconstitutional in every conceivable application and is not unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance reads: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5232a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Mark A. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. The Government asserts that fees for attor neys consulted by a pro se plaintiff are not recoverable under either FOIA or the Privacy Act. Blazy is not entitled to recover his claimed costs because they do not fall within the compass of allowable costs under 28 U.S.C. s 1920 (1994). Blazy invoked both FOIA and the Privacy Act and because the language of FOIA's and the Privacy Act's fee shifting provisions are nearly identical. Blazy's claims for fees and costs should fail because they have not been substantiated. Because a litigant can recover </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/05/962699P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barrett was again convicted. This time his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Iowa. The Attorney General of Iowa now appeals the granting of the writ and asserts that the evidence at issue was properly admitted. (c) properly ruled that The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is inapplicable to this pending case. (d) erroneously held that Barrett failed to exhaust his state remedies regarding his claim that the state court's reliance on his reversed prior conviction was improper. Hold that the issue is now moot. Were found several miles apart in rural Iowa. 401 N.W. 2d at 185. Walker was Barrett's girlfriend at the time of her death. Walker had been shot three times and was found lying in the middle of a gravel road. Willits had been shot once through the right temple and was found seated behind the wheel of a car on a blacktop road. A note in Willits' handwriting was found in the car near her body. The note was addressed to Barrett and stated in part. There was also a three page postmarked letter in the car addressed to Willits from Barrett informing her that he did not reciprocate her romantic feelings for him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="175"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Robert L. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Plaintiffs are citizens who petitioned various parts of the Legislative and Executive Branches for redress of a variety of grievances that plaintiffs asserted with respect to the Government's tax. I Plaintiffs are numerous individuals and an organization that creatively calls itself </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="174"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR> We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974924.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were named in a multi count indictment arising out of their association with a violent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BA74308F4A4A6B0882573130055EBFC/$file/0517027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked. Whether the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional. Numerous news reports were written on the crime. Crater and Robinson were tried for robbery. Robinson was convicted on all counts. After learning that Crater was reluctant to accept this deal. Finding no evidence that the state judge harbored </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR> We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The FDIC insures deposits in financial institutions and is authorized by statute to act as receiver for insured institutions that fail and are closed by their chartering authority. 12 U.S.C. 1811. When the FDIC is appointed receiver for a failed institution. The FDIC is authorized to collect all obligations and moneys owed to failed institutions for the benefit of the institution's creditors and shareholders. The FDIC is empowered to avoid fraudulent transfers. Parks was a director of Olympic International Bank and Trust Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="173"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F6BABE8F1E07A5E88256B9C007DE67C/$file/0055504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose deceased children's corneas were removed by the Los Angeles County Coroner's office without notice or 5723 consent. The complaint was dismissed by the district court for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That next of kin have the exclusive right to possess the bodies of their deceased family members creates a property interest. The parents were not required to exhaust postdeprivation procedures prior to bringing this suit. Arguing that the parents could not have a property interest in their deceased children's corneas. The coroner also argued that to the extent the parents did have due process rights. They were required to exhaust state postdeprivation remedies prior to bringing suit. If these elements are met. It is uncontested that the coroner's action was a deprivation under color of state law. That the dismissal of the parents' complaint was proper because they could not have a property interest in their children's corneas. 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us for a second time. The plaintiffs are pro life activists who sometimes express their objection to abortion by picketing near the residences of individuals who provide abortion services. Holding that a preliminary injunction was in order because the ordinance was probably unconstitutional. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="172"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972424P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Those claims were properly dismissed because section 1983 does not provide a cause of action on behalf of a deceased for events occurring after death. 302 (8th Cir. 1950). 34 </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0217p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alan Louis Hunyady was living in the home of his deceased father without the consent of the personal representative of his father's estate. When the house was searched. Hunyady was subsequently charged with. Was sentenced by the court to 33 months of imprisonment. The residence was entrusted to James Visser. Leslie Hunyady's will made no provision for his son. Who was. (The majority of Hunyady's personal effects were at the Clio residence. Hunyady's memory is hazy because of an injury sustained in an earlier car accident. He was nonetheless able to testify at trial that. Visser informed him that he </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF8B84CF138501D78825705E0052F4B0/$file/0435389.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 5 U.S.C. § 552.1 Louis contends a system of records from which he sought information about himself was improperly exempted by the Department pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act. </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/1998/09/97-6310.htm">97-6310 -- U.S. V. ANDERSON -- 09/15/1998<BR></A><BR> 3731 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Anderson was arrested after a successful FBI sting operation. The goal of the sting operation was to identify and prosecute members of the Internet chat room known as the </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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3887-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3643.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pitts was sentenced to 324 months' incarceration and eight years of supervised release. Was addressed to James Reed. This number was intended to allow the sender to track the status of the package and direct its return to the sender if it could not be delivered for any reason. Pitts called the Post Office to check the status of the package and was told that it had been delivered to the addressee listed on the parcel. The pack Nos. 01 3643 & 01 3644 3 ages were large. Were heavily taped. Were sent from known source areas for narcotics. Were addressed to different individuals at the same address in Moline. These three packages were ultimately delivered to the 3rd Street address without incident. Was heavily taped. The inspector had previously determined that the only known resident of 1123 3rd Street was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/08/96-1380.htm">96-1380 -- RICHMOND V. EMBRY -- 08/11/1997<BR></A><BR> Richmond was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and was sentenced to two consecutive sixteen year terms of imprisonment. This testimony was corroborated by evidence of her consistent out of court statements. The victim's testimony was also supplemented by medical evidence the victim had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-1380.wpd.html">RICHMOND V. EMBRY<BR></A><BR> Richmond was convicted of two counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and was sentenced to two consecutive sixteen year terms of imprisonment. This testimony was corroborated by evidence of her consistent out of court statements. The victim's testimony was also supplemented by medical evidence the victim had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5275a.html">NATION MAGAZINE V. US CUSTOMS SVC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310795.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Guirlaine O'Rourke was the office manager for her husband's medical office. Sylvester Brown was a probationer who sometimes performed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="171"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have now reconsidered the case. We hold that dismissal of a public employee on the sole basis of a conversation between his wife and daughter is wholly arbitrary. Don Cecil was the Chief of Police. Della Price were the four members of Advance's City Council. A local private investigator named David George was scanning radio frequencies with a radio scanner and happened to pick up a conversation between Joann and Sabrina. The Council members were upset (as well they should have been) that David Singleton's wife and his daughter had discussed attempting to bribe Cecil. City Attorney Donald Rhodes advised the City Council that as an at will employee. This vote was sufficient to terminate Singleton's employment with the City. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3398DF0F5B7CAC288256D5E00785FB2/$file/0136172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981481A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="170"></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="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-3097.man.html">D'AGUANNO V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D'Aguanno v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is from a decision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/02-5168a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-3097.man.html">D'AGUANNO V. GALLAGHER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>D'Aguanno v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal is from a decision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/01-3109a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/012730P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding defense trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a jury poll regarding a newspaper article during the trial and also finding no trial court error in failing to poll the jury regarding the mid trial publicity. Were each charged with murder and burglary. The three were then tried together. That will be your sworn duty if you are selected as a juror. If there is. Arguing the newspaper article was prejudicial to Tunstall in two respects. The article contained misstatements: (a) the headline was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1952.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Disasters are said to bring out the best and the worst in people. The municipality of Toa Alta was badly hit and it sought federal disaster assistance monies from FEMA. The two were acquitted on extortion charges. Each was sentenced to a term of 57 months. The facts of the underlying crime are as follows.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0224n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson is serving a life sentence in a Michigan prison for the felony murder of Mary Rook. I. Mary Rook was murdered on March 17. He was charged with first degree felonymurder. Compagnari was tried separately. He was acquitted of first degree murder but convicted of larceny and being an accessory after the fact. A state district court judge who was running for reelection. The flyers said: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BE&K is a non union merit shop construction contractor headquartered judgment. in Birmingham. It performs in plant and construction work for BE&K was hired by Potlatch various industries throughout the country. Potlatch is a paper manufacturing company headquartered in San Francisco. 000. 1 Four bids were George Hight. Potlatch employees at the Cypress Bend paper mill are represented by two local Paperworkers unions. A maintenance local and a production local.2 The Paperworkers are an international union that represents in plant production and maintenance workers at paper mills throughout the United States. The evidence at trial indicated that the local unions and the company maintain a BE&K began preparations 1 The bid amount was later reduced to approximately $575. The local unions were originally named as defendants in this action. The meeting was attended by thirteen Potlatch officials. The president and chief operating officer who was based in San Francisco but was in Arkansas to attend meetings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/971280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullens was married to Cox's grandfather. He later told police that he had killed Sullens because he suspected that she was trying to kill his grandfather. He found that Margaret and William Brown were there. Cox was arrested and confessed in detail. He was tried and sentenced to death in a bifurcated proceeding. Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The case was later transferred to the Honorable William R. Because issues of credibility were involved. DISCUSSION This matter is before us on an application for a certificate of appealability pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="169"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413083ORD.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: I concur in the denial of rehearing en banc for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the Eighth Amendment issue addressed in Judge Barkett's dissenting opinion. Those are intended to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67547D3475EB792488256E5A00707CEC/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E8C4359706CBA1E88256DD4005BF628/$file/0216326.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that her actions were part of the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings for which social workers are entitled to absolute immunity. The court also concluded that there was no basis for Monell liability against the County. We agree with the district court that the Does' Monell claim against the County must fail because there was no evidence that Herrera was a final decisionmaker for the County. We also agree with the district court that Herrera is entitled to immunity for her actions. We disagree that she is entitled to absolute immunity across the board. We hold that Herrera's actions in allegedly failing to investigate adequately the allegations of abuse and neglect against George and in allegedly fabricating evidence in the dependency petitions she prepared for the court were part of the initiation and pursuit of child dependency proceedings. For which Herrera was entitled to absolute immunity. She is entitled only to qualified immunity. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lacey Doe is the four year old daughter of George Doe and Robin Doe.1 On November 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E9D19A55491575988256AD3000B592B/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21DC1A5D986D0CAC88257171006D54EB/$file/0430541.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs for the appellant. Were on the brief for the appellee. Circuit Judge: This case requires us to consider whether a driver of a rental car who is not listed on the rental agreement has standing to challenge a police search of the vehicle. Where the Source was present when Thomas purchased crack cocaine. The source is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="167"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200609/04-5425a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\10-31-05 SITTING\04-5425 MCCREADY V. NICHOLSON\OPINION\MCCREADY-FINAL-REVISED_12_5_06.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard H. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Created records about her that were filled with inaccuracies. That she is entitled under the Privacy Act to review and amend those records. Should have survived the VA's summary judgment motion. The Inspector General's audit produced three documents that have become the subject of this litigation: (1) a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-3340.opa.html">LENZ V. WINBURN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lenz v. Facts<p> <p> Donald and Shirley Lenz (the elder Lenzes or the Lenzes) have a son named Kurt.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMzggdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-9038%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The areas to be inspected were a residential dock and adjacent areas located on tidal wetlands off the rear portion of Palmieri's backyard. Palmieri's claim is one essentially sounding in trespass quare clausum fregit that has escalated into a constitutional claim of Fourth Amendment violations only because the trespassers were representatives of a state government regulatory agency. Entry of these state actors was responsive to Palmieri's desire to obtain a necessary permit to conduct construction work on his property. That the agents were dispatched by Palmieri within minutes of their entry and that no damage was done might have justified the disposition of this case by application of the maxim de minimis non curat lex. Because of the 1 1 2 3 John Doe #1 is presumably the intern who accompanied Lynch on her inspection. We are constrained to undertake the more elaborate analysis that follows. The property is situated on Long Island's Great South Bay and encompasses both New York State regulated tidal wetlands and a regulated adjacent area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F6A731E43C46E2A88256E5A00707CAD/$file/9856842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer. Whom the company believed was a licensed physician. The medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers' union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants Lorenza Wilson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-3340.opa.html">LENZ V. WINBURN<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lenz v. Facts<p> <p> Donald and Shirley Lenz (the elder Lenzes or the Lenzes) have a son named Kurt.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1757.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gordon</SPAN> was on brief. Was on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-5085b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs was Michael Sussman. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Or otherwise pertain[ing] to me </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5391a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/924EBAD25435CFA888257344005984F4/$file/0556282.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although under certain circumstances concerns about federal question jurisdiction will preclude federal courts from hearing a case where there is no federal private right of action. The following facts formed the basis of the lawsuit: Smart is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF79ACA6427EF7988256ABF007BC839/$file/9856842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer. Whom the company believed was a licensed physician. The medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers' union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants Lorenza Wilson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="166"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-5200.htm">99-5200 -- MCCARTY V. CITY OF BARTLESVILLE -- 03/13/2001<BR></A><BR> These facts are either undisputed or. Are taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. <u>See</u> <u>Simms v. The officers were hired because the complex had only one security officer. Officer Dan Woolery were among the officers from the Department hired by Brookhaven. The McCartys were scheduled to work security at Brookhaven on a shift that began at 10:00 p.m. and ended at either 2:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. Was responsible for keeping track of the time officers worked security at the complex for payroll purposes. <p> In the spring of 1997. Contacted Pat McCarty to investigate whether Officer Helkenberg was being compensated by Brookhaven as a security officer while not actually performing such work. He reviewed these records as well as Department records relating to Officer Helkenberg's scheduled work hours. <p> Pat McCarty concluded that Officer Helkenberg was charging Brookhaven for work he did not perform. Officer Woolery was ultimately allowed the opportunity to rectify the situation by making restitution to Brookhaven and writing a letter of apology. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/944001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1974. when he was 48 years old. Judged his work to be satisfactory and noted 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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/987307.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="165"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001846.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a civil rights action arising out of the shooting of a pet dog. The plaintiffs/appellants are Kim and David Brown. Police Officer Robert Eberly is alleged to be the primary constitutional tortfeasor. Two of its Chiefs of Police are also alleged to be responsible for Officer Eberly's constitutional torts on various theories. We then examine whether the defendants other than Officer Eberly share responsibility for any constitutional violations that may have occurred. They were in the process of moving. Kim was upstairs packing. While David was loading the car. Officer Eberly was passing in his patrol car. Circling around a vehicle in the parking lot that was approximately twenty feet from the curb. Immi was stationary and not growling or barking. He and Immi were facing one another. We are thus faced with a situation in which a municipal law enforcement officer intentionally and repeatedly shot a pet without any provocation and with knowledge that it belonged to the family who lived in the adjacent house and was available to take custody. 4 II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041568P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7037.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs in these consolidated appeals are either former employees of defendant Weyerhaeuser Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-7043a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Steven H. Was on the brief for appellant. With him on the brief were John M. Were on the brief for intervenor United States of America. Alleg edly saying that Davis was dying of HIV. Thus he invokes the familiar taxonomy in which classifications that disadvantage a suspect class or impinge on the exercise of a fundamental right are subject to strict scrutiny. While classifications that do neither are subject only to review for rationality. Here the central claim is that Davis's right to privacy is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4240.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Neither of which were capable of being locked. Immediately inside the front entrance was a small landing. Who was suspected of assaulting his estranged wife. Was staying with his sister. The witness also told Churchich that Diviney was leaving town and had access to firearms. Churchich advised them of the situation and informed them that although he did not have a warrant for Diviney. His intent was to perform a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/993575P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that USDA's determination that the petition is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA's personal privacy exemption is contrary to law. I. The assessments at issue in the requested referendum are imposed under the Pork Promotion. Which is the Board's general contractor. $36.5 million is allocated for contracts with the Council. Authority for such a referendum is found in the Act. Which provides that USDA shall conduct a referendum to determine whether pork producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of the order implementing the checkoff program </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-3292.htm">98-3292 -- LILE V. MCKUNE -- 09/05/2000<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing. He was convicted in Kansas state court of aggravated kidnaping. Plaintiff was required to disclose his sexual history. Including the crime of which he was convicted and any uncharged sexual offenses. He also complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the intrusive nature of the plethysmograph examination. <p> Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is properly granted where. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/971726P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An at will employment state. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 discharged municipal at will employee does not have a section 1983 substantive due process occupational liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The City of Advance did not have a written employment agreement with Officer Singleton. Officer Singleton's employment was terminable at will. Defendant Don Cecil was Advance's police chief. Della Price were members of Advance's city council. Was not a named defendant. This statement was recorded by David George. His free speech allegation rested on the premise that he was discharged in an effort to keep him silent concerning Chief Cecil's car purchase. The district court also found that Officer Singleton could not prevail There is no contention on appeal that this interception was illegal or that George was targeting conversations between Joann and Sabrina. As an at will employee. The district court held that Officer Singleton's claims that he was deprived of his rights of intimate association and marital privacy failed because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM2MjAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3620-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As Trustee of the Congel Family Trust which are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates. As Trustee of the Congel Family Trust which are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates. As Trustee of the Congel Family Trust which are General Partners of Woodchuck Hill Associates. Whether the media intervenors can appeal a district court order that was not a final judgment. None of whom are parties to this appeal. Arguing that these were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDAC9ABEB56A002488256D410074AE59/$file/0110739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the motion should have been granted and thus reverse the contrary orders of the district court. Were investigating an incident involving a game of Russian roulette that had ended in a shooting death. DAVIS 7937 Davis when they learned that he might have witnessed the incident. She called Stephanie Smith to warn her that the police were coming and told Smith not to let them into the apartment. Smith was the only person there. That the second bedroom was occupied not by her. That Davis' belongings were in that room. Who was last to testify regarding the search. Provided an account that was. Dyer testified that Smith had told the officers that the room where Davis' belongings were found was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1503.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lee was struck by stray gunfire while driving his car down a Chicago. Analyze any bullets that might have become lodged in it. He was unable to pay the amount the City demanded. Through him was able to negotiate an acceptable payment amount. Lee filed an amended complaint on behalf of two classes of similarly situated individuals (those who had to pay fees and those whose cars were repainted). Holding that Lee lacked standing to challenge his car's spray painting because he presented no evidence that he No. 02 1503 3 maintained a cognizable property interest in the car at the time it was painted. A motion to dismiss is to be granted only if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/003631P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals from the District Court ruling which suppressed the evidence retrieved from James Mendoza's home on the grounds that the search was unreasonable. Officers checked with the utility company and learned that the utilities to the lower unit of the duplex were in Mendoza's name. Who confirmed Mendoza was the individual in possession of the heroin. Mendoza's residence is a multifamily dwelling (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043878P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After his employment as a technology transfer coordinator at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln was terminated. He claims that his constitutional rights were violated by the search of his office computer and the university's failure to honor its technology licensing agreement (TLA) with a third party. When negotiations for a project were successful. The agreement was formalized by the university's Office of Technology Transfer (OTT). The policy provided that such discoveries were to be offered to the university in writing. Royalties accrued from the use of the invention were to be divided between the inventor and the university. While he was employed at the IAPC. A provisional patent application was subsequently filed. Filed a verified statement claiming nonprofit organization status with the Patent and Trademark Office and declaring that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="163"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210223.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Love was stricken with polio at the age of three and is paralyzed. That the restroom was too small to accommodate her. That she was not afforded privacy in the restroom. 49 U.S.C. § 41705.1 In her The ACAA was enacted as § 404(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Was codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1374(c). It was amended and recodified in 1994 at 49 U.S.C. § 41705. Subsections (b) and (c) of § 41705 were added by the Wendell H. May not discriminate against an otherwise qualified individual on the following grounds: (1) the individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (2) the individual has a record of such an impairment. (3) the individual is regarded as having such an impairment. (b) Each act constitutes separate offense. Love sought a declaration that Delta had engaged in discrimination by not ensuring that its facilities and services were accessible to disabled persons. (2) What remedies are available to private litigants? The issue of whether a statute creates by implication a private right of action is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY3NTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6754-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is reasonable. The precise 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 issue before us is whether one such search regime. Each plaintiff either submitted to a baggage search and entered the subway or refused the search and consequently was required to exit the subway system. The District Court erred in balancing the relevant factors because (a) the searches are intrusive. (b) there is no immediate terrorist threat. (c) the City's evidence fails as a 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 matter of law to establish that the Program is effective. We hold that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-4456.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. HALL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Parks of the United States Customs Service began investigating allegations that Bet Air was supplying restricted military parts to Iran. No signs indicated that the road was private. He did not know he was on private property. The dumpster was readily accessible to the public. One of the reconstructed shredded documents was titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY3NTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6754-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is reasonable. The precise 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 issue before us is whether one such search regime. Each plaintiff either submitted to a baggage search and entered the subway or refused the search and consequently was required to exit the subway system. The District Court erred in balancing the relevant factors because (a) the searches are intrusive. (b) there is no immediate terrorist threat. (c) the City's evidence fails as a 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 matter of law to establish that the Program is effective. We hold that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-4456.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. HALL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Parks of the United States Customs Service began investigating allegations that Bet Air was supplying restricted military parts to Iran. No signs indicated that the road was private. He did not know he was on private property. The dumpster was readily accessible to the public. One of the reconstructed shredded documents was titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/477F8B469DA3927288256C21005930B9/$file/9810136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Way Quoe Long (Long) was convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE). Long was acquitted of a manufacturing charge (count 4) and one piece of real property was found not to be forfeitable (count 10). (3) whether alleged juror misconduct is sufficient for reversal and whether Long knowingly and voluntarily waived his presence at the in camera hearings regarding juror misconduct. 328 U.S. 640 (1946)) (judicially created rule that makes a conspirator criminally liable for the substantive offenses committed by a co conspirator when they are reasonably foreseeable and committed in furtherance of the conspiracy). (6) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the use or carry firearm conviction. (7) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the CCE conviction and whether the district court erroneously instructed the jury on the CCE charge. The search warrant was based upon the sworn affidavit of a Fresno Police Department detective. (3) the government is estopped from arguing that he did not because it stated during a bail hearing that Long resided at East Clay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="162"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2791.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carter was required to complete and sign a health history questionnaire. Carter then answered in the affirmative the following three questions: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/00-2440.htm">00-2440 -- U.S. V. HIGGINS -- 03/11/2002<BR></A><BR> Jinks were charged with using a house outside the city limits of Albuquerque as a place to manufacture methamphetamine. Was also indicted on those three counts plus one count of possession of ammunition after a former felony conviction. Ortiz entered into a plea agreement with the government and was a key witness at the trial of the three Defendants. <p> In a joint trial. All three Defendants were convicted on all three counts. Higgins was subsequently sentenced to three concurrent sentences of 235 months' imprisonment. That the sentences imposed on the Defendants must be reconsidered because the calculation of drug quantity by the district court at the sentencing hearing lacked a proper evidentiary basis. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> The house at which Defendants were arrested was described as being in the mountains east of Albuquerque in the town of Tijeras. The area was remote. There was no power or water and the toilet had been dismantled. The inspector said it was hazardous just to walk around the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5068.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The database is used for law enforcement identification purposes. If personally identifiable information is removed. In the absence of individualized suspicion that they have committed additional crimes. (1) DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. We hold that the Act is constitutional because the Government's interest in extracting DNA from the Plaintiffs outweighs their interests in avoiding the intrusions upon their privacy. The DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act DNA is a double helix shaped nucleic acid held together by hydrogen bonds and composed of base pairings of Adenine and Thymine and Cytosine and Guanine. DNA is extracted from a cell. The short tandem repeats are copied millions of times. Since there is only an infinitesimal chance that two people's DNA will be identical in these variable regions. The Bureau of Prisons collects the DNA samples from qualified offenders who are in custody. The federal probation office collects the DNA samples from qualified offenders who are on release. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9144E5C8EFBF07488256F1500754569/$file/0256648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants appellees are Albert Ruegg. Who are federal Bureau of Alcohol. Was released on parole on February 20. Was rearrested on February 3. While Jamerson was in custody. Jamerson's last known residence was on the list. The officers admit they had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Jamerson was involved in any crime. They were simply searching parolees as a way to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-5207a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Jeffrey A. Were on the brief for appellee Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Spitzer were on the brief for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area. Inc. (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB8DEECEDDA7C5B7882573220075807A/$file/0550410.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. page 8075. The mirror port was installed at PacBell's connection facility in San Diego. Circuit Judge: Defendants appellants Mark Stephen Forrester and Dennis Louis Alba were charged with various offenses relating to the operation of a large Ecstasy manufacturing laboratory. Were convicted on all counts following a jury trial. The omission and the misstatement compel us to hold that Forrester's waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent and that the Sixth Amendment was violated when he was allowed to proceed pro se. We conclude that this surveillance was analogous to the use of a pen register that the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Alba is not entitled to the suppression of the evidence obtained through the surveillance because there is no statutory or other authority for such a remedy.1 I. Forrester and Alba were indicted on October 26. Forrester was charged with one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 3. Alba was also charged with that Alba's remaining arguments are addressed in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0E09BB37A97D51A88257310004D1DAC/$file/0550410.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendants appellants Mark Stephen Forrester and Dennis Louis Alba were charged with various offenses relating to the operation of a large Ecstasy manufacturing laboratory. Were convicted on all counts following a jury trial. The omission and the misstatement compel us to hold that Forrester's waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent and that the Sixth Amendment was violated when he was allowed to proceed pro se. We conclude that this surveillance was analogous to the use of a pen register that the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Alba is not entitled to the suppression of the evidence 8074 UNITED STATES v. FORRESTER obtained through the surveillance because there is no statutory or other authority for such a remedy.1 I. Forrester and Alba were indicted on October 26. Forrester was charged with one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 3. Alba was also charged with that offense. Forrester is represented by counsel on appeal. He also had legal representation from the time his indictment was filed until October 23. </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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981896.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was also a party to the suit both individually and as next friend to the two minor children. All of Reinbold's claims against all defendants were disposed of through pre trial motions. I. Reinbold is an employee of the NSA. Reinbold was assigned to the Naval Security Group (NAVSECGRU) at Sugar Grove. Reinbold was responsible for: (1) tasking the on site maintenance and engineering contractors. Was required to satisfy mandatory security standards and be cleared for access to sensitive compartmented information (an SCI security clearance). An SCI security clearance is only granted when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612351.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We granted a certificate of appealability on three issues: (1) whether Gaskin was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the penalty phase of his trial based on counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence and to address statutory mitigating circumstances in closing argument. (2) whether Gaskin was denied a fair and impartial jury when the trial court denied his motions to change venue due to pervasive and prejudicial pretrial publicity. (3) whether Florida's capital sentencing statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. Whether this claim is procedurally defaulted.1 After a thorough review of the record. BACKGROUND The Florida Supreme Court summarized the factual background in Gaskin's direct appeal: Gaskin concedes that his claim regarding the constitutionality of Florida's capital sentencing statute is procedurally defaulted. Gaskin's involvement in the shootings was brought to the attention of the authorities by Alfonso Golden. The property that had been left with Golden was subsequently identified as belonging to the Sturmfels. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-1435.htm">02-1435 -- U.S. V. ABDENBI -- 03/22/2004<BR></A><BR> Introduction</strong> <p> Defendant appellant Samir Hedi Ben Abdenbi was charged. Concluding that the encounter between Abdenbi and three federal agents which occurred in Abdenbi's apartment was wholly consensual.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021683.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The action was filed under seal. There is a significant question as to whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. UNDER SEAL the appeal is interlocutory. Argue that the district court's order is a collateral order. The binding effect of our precedent compels us to conclude that the district court's order unsealing the record is appealable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="159"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2014.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We review the district court's underlying factual findings for clear error and its conclusion that the cocaine's seizure was unreasonable de novo. I. The relevant historical facts are taken from the transcript of the suppression hearing. The agents are looking for passengers whose travel arrangements are consistent with someone smuggling drugs or other contraband. Defendant was a passenger aboard an Amtrak train arriving in Albuquerque from Los Angeles. We see a lot of one way travel where people couriers will leave from their home city to go get narcotics on the West Coast or southwest border. So they're scared that their baggage will be searched or their person will be searched at the airport. They will then either take the train or a bus which has a less lower level of security level. Or they will rent a vehicle. They will drive back to their home with the narcotics. Narcotic couriers commonly they don't have control of their time. They have to they may be waiting for the narcotics to arrive at their city of origin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967539A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. Judge Ervin heard oral argument but died before the en banc decision was filed. A convicted habitual felon who was not at the time nor yet eligible for parole under applicable law. Irving Houston Hawkins was convicted by jury trial in a North Carolina Superior Court of the sale and delivery of cocaine. He was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment on the sale and delivery of cocaine and habitual felon charges and to ten years on the possession with intent to sell cocaine charge. The ten year sentence was to be served. His ensuing confinement in the North Carolina prison system was his fifth in that system. Though this parole eligibility provision was amended later in 1981 to reduce the time of required service before parole eligibility from 75% of sentence to a flat seven years. The amended version was effective only as to offenses committed after July 1. It is therefore undisputed that Hawkins's legally prescribed parole eligibility date remained April 20. Hawkins was. The letter 3 alluded to the possibility that Hawkins </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0092p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yoon moved to suppress the evidence found in the apartment because it was obtained without a warrant. He further alleges that the district court's assessment of a two point sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice was clearly erroneous. Although Kim was provided with a bundle of cash. It was significantly less than the amount that would have been required to complete the transaction. Are you having to break it down? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A6AE4C85241C517C88257101007B72EB/$file/0415736.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GONZALES 1141 ment of the Government's civilian airline passenger identification policy is unconstitutional. The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter. He was not allowed to board his flights to Washington. It is vague and uncertain and therefore violated his right to due process. He also alleges that when he was not allowed to board the airplanes. The current federal defendants have been substituted for the originally named defendants pursuant to Fed. Are collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/997.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will refer to Respondent as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4057.htm">01-4057 -- ROSKA V. PETERSON -- 09/05/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the suit. He was wearing a parka even though it was 70 degrees outside. Was sweating. Roska apparently stated that Rusty was suffering from kidney failure. Who allegedly informed the nurse that he did not have kidney failure.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4057.htm">01-4057 -- ROSKA V. PETERSON -- 04/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Chief Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="158"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051519p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented here with a casebook ready fact pattern implicating an area of Fourth Amendment law that has long been a source of confusion. How the exclusionary rule applies in cases in which evidence obtained during an illegal traffic stop is introduced against a passenger with no possessory interest in the vehicle. We hold that when a vehicle is illegally stopped by the police. No evidence found during the stop may be used by the 2 government against any occupant of the vehicle unless the government can show that the taint of the illegal stop was purged. We join all of our sister circuits that have directly faced this issue. We will canvass that caselaw. While they were at the club. Told Mosley that he was leaving the club to go meet her. A dancer at the club who was accompanying Hayes. The source of the information relayed in the radio call is not reflected in the record. As it was pulling away from the nightclub. Hayes and Mosley were arrested and charged with gun possession. The officers did not observe Hayes committing any traffic violation that would have justified the stop under Whren v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4MzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1835-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After these vulnerability assessments have been made. This assessment was aimed at </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0151p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was a tenant at the Jeffries Homes public housing project in Detroit. Is based on federal rights under the same statutes and regulations as described in Count I. Was diagnosed with lead poisoning at the age of two. Plaintiff's brief on appeal is devoid of any argument pertaining to an appeal from the June 21. This portion of the appeal is therefore deemed abandoned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/971977.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was arrested while leaving the parole office for violating the condition of his parole that required him to refrain from driving. Where he was convicted of violating SS 841(a)(1) and 922 (g)(1) and sentenced to almost twenty years imprisonment on weapons and drugs charges. Is now in its third discrete phase. We will explain our previous conclusions memorialized in an unrequited certification to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that Baker had standing to object to the search of the vehicle. These holdings are the predicate for the question whether the consent to search form authorized suspicionless searches because. If as a matter of Pennsylvania law the standard consent to search form implies a requirement that parole officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search of a parolee. The order of the District Court denying Baker's motion to suppress will be reversed. He was arrested by parole officers for violating this condition of parole. 3 After Baker was arrested. Parole officers searched the passenger compartment and the glove compartment of the car that Baker had been driving and discovered that the car was registered in someone else's name. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Forest was convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute both powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Forest was sentenced to 188 months in prison followed by 8 years of supervised release. Garner was sentenced to 120 months in prison followed by 8 years of supervised release. Forest and Garner both contend that the government violated their statutory and constitutional rights by intercepting cellular phone data that revealed their general location while they were traveling on public highways. A more detailed factual discussion is therefore included under each heading in Part II below. Forest and Garner were part of a large drug trafficking operation in the area of Youngstown/Warren. Forest and Garner were found guilty on the various counts of conspiracy. Demonstrated that Forest and Garner were jointly involved in drug trafficking. Wire communications intercepted by the DEA between May 8 and May 30 of 2001 indicated that Forest and Garner were expecting the imminent arrival of a large shipment of cocaine. </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041407np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NJ 07091 Counsels for Appellees OPINION OF THE COURT 2 PER CURIAM: The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. Remand to the District Court so that it may decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive. Are moot because B.M. graduated from high school in 1996.1 See Joint Appendix ( </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A95CF272053DC6E882570510054C594/$file/0415228.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether developmentally disabled recipients of Medicaid funds and their service providers have a private right of action against state officials to compel the enforcement of a federal law governing state disbursement of such funds. We are also asked to decide. Or are at risk of living in. State institutions because community based services are inadequately funded. All members of the class are entitled to services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1375.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Edelmiro Salas Garcia was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. At issue is the power of the district court to grant judgment as a matter of law after a jury's verdict on a ground never raised by the parties prior to submission of the case to the jury. First Circuit case law holds that surviving family members cannot recover in an action brought under 1983 for deprivation of rights secured by the federal constitution for their own damages from the victim's death unless the unconstitutional action was aimed at the familial relationship. Is not sufficient to establish a violation of a [sic] identified liberty interest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062533P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Samson Aldaco was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). After being informed the Mustang might have been at the scene of a shooting earlier in the evening. The occupants of the Mustang were arrested. Firearms were recovered. The vehicle was towed so it could be secured for a search after obtaining a search warrant. Were taken from the glove compartment of the Mustang. Officer Leland Cass of the Omaha Police Department (OPD) testified at the suppression hearing he searched Aldaco's wallet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-5002a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lesar was on the briefs. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. As this is such a case. Stated which FOIA exemption or exemptions were intended to justify the withholding. I have come to the onclusion in reviewing this case that it is a dead stalemate at the moment. That there are going to be no more documents released. That there is re ally no alternative left to simply deciding the motions. We have reviewed the file. The documents that have been withheld and the exemp tions claimed for them. I am satisfied that the exemp tions are properly claimed. THE COURT: It would be nice if there was some prospect that there were going to be further reviews. I as sume that the court will be issu ing a written order? ... the materials withheld by defendant are. The government notified the court that it is reversible error not to make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/492B9ACB7285421C8825725F005393DD/$file/0530456.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because the initial encounter between Defendant and the police was consensual or. Was supported by reasonable suspicion. Because his consent to search was voluntary. 162 UNITED STATES v. None of which is clearly erroneous and all of which are supported by evidence in the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0332p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Loren Glenn Turner was indicted on charges arising from his involvement in two Kentucky state elections. The first was the May 2002 election of Donnie Newsome as Knott County Judge Executive. The second was the November 2002 election for Pike County District Judge. Turner's convictions were based on two alternate theories: first. Who was at that time working for the Hays campaign. Varney described </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5002a.html">SUMMERS ANTHONY V. DOJ<BR></A><BR> Lesar</I> was on the briefs.<P> <P> <I>Melanie A. </I> United States Attorney at the time the <P> brief was filed. Were on the brief.<P> <P> Before: SILBERMAN. As this is such a case. Stated which FOIA exemption or exemptions <P> were intended to justify the withholding.<P> <P> After the cross motions for summary judgment became <P> ripe for decision. I have come to the <P> onclusion in reviewing this <P> case that it is a dead stalemate <P> at the moment. That there are <P> going to be no more documents <P> released. That there is re <P> ally no alternative left to simply <P> deciding the motions. We have reviewed the file. The documents that have <P> been withheld and the exemp <P> tions claimed for them. I <P> am satisfied that the exemp <P> tions are properly claimed. LESAR: Yes.<P> <P> THE COURT: It would be nice if there was <P> some prospect that there were <P> going to be further reviews. I as <P> sume that the court will be issu <P> ing a written order?<P> <P> THE COURT: I'm not going to write an opin <P> ion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-5065a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. We conclude the district court properly exempted the draft document from release under FOIA Exemption 5 and properly found the document was not part of a system of records subject to disclosure under the Privacy Act. The name of the alleged victim is not subject to release as a segregable fact. Arturo Giron was Peace Corps Country Director for the Kingdom of Tonga. Was 18 or 19 years old and appeared to have been under 18 at the time of the incident. 3 Giron consulted the Peace Corps Manual and contacted the General Counsel's office for advice. Horowitz remembered the incident but explained that the encounter was consensual and assured Giron the student had been 18 years old at the time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0377a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant appellant Loren Glenn Turner was indicted on charges arising from his involvement in two Kentucky state elections. The first was the May 2002 election of Donnie Newsome as Knott County Judge Executive. The second was the November 2002 election for Pike County District Judge. Turner's convictions were based on two alternate theories: first. Who was at that time working for the Hays campaign. Varney described </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3017_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS was investigating Yang and his brother. Three of the notebooks were spiral bound and two were bound bookstyle. The three spiral notebooks were each labeled with a year: 2000. None of the notebooks were sealed. His father were under investigation for tax fraud in connection with their ownership of the China Buffet Restaurant in Eau Claire. Told Yang that he could probably have them back by November 4. While he was making the copies. 2) whether the individual's expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. He or she must not have manifested by his or her conduct a voluntary consent to the defendant's allegedly invasive actions. A hope of privacy is not an expectation of privacy. Courts applying the subjective expectation prong have looked to the individuals' affirmative steps to conceal and keep private whatever item was the subject of the search. 687 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the contents of a paper bag because it is among the 6 Nos. 06 3017 & 06 3095 least private of containers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53F6AE4196764B6F88256D4B0080D25F/$file/0156673.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They argue that the district court erred in ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. The officers contend that they are entitled to a new trial on the unlawful detention claim because the district court abused its discretion (1) in denying the officers' proposed instruction on unlawful detention. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Brill and Muehler were directly responsible for supervising the search. Was residing in the house. Iris Mena was a resident in the house. Which was owned by her father. The police officers forcibly entered the residence and observed that some of the rooms were locked. Including the bedroom in which Mena was sleeping. Although she was absolutely compliant. The officers did not explain to her the reason she was being detained. Upon learning from Mena that her citizenship documentation was in her purse. She contended that (1) the search warrant and search were overbroad. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mena's constitutional rights were not violated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-4138.htm">97-4138 -- U.S. V. RITH -- 01/19/1999<BR></A><BR> (2) all incriminating statements should have been suppressed because they were involuntary. He was in custody for purposes of <em>Miranda</em>. (3) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the admission of a certificate showing nonregistration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Background</strong> <p> Officer Mikkel Roe of the West Valley Police Department was dispatched to a residence in West Valley City. Officer Roe was informed en route that Sam Rith and his wife were concerned about firearms they had seen their son carry into their home. The address to which Officer Roe was dispatched was the residence of friends of the Riths. Fearful of guns and afraid that their son was involved in a gang. The Riths requested that Officer Roe check the home and ascertain if the guns were stolen. He gave the officers a house key so that no damage would be done to the house in the event they were not otherwise allowed entry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16E8CBFCB4A62D5D88256A8F0057FEFA/$file/9930012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paez and Berzon) concludes that the officers did not have probable cause to enter Johnson's property. Were not in hot pursuit when they searched the area outside the mushroom shed. That same majority also concludes that whether the search took 9190 place within the curtilage is a question that must be determined in the first instance by the district court. The decision of the district court is REVERSED. In an attempt to apprehend another person who was a misdemeanor suspect last seen 30 minutes previously and whose whereabouts were unknown. A search warrant was issued and Johnson was subsequently indicted on one count of man9191 ufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Determining that the search was justified under the hot pursuit and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The threejudge panel of this Court assumed that the shed was not in an open field but was part of the curtilage. REMAND the case to the district court for factual findings and conclusions on whether the shed was in an open field or part of the curtilage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C5E640BA3E38DD8388256E5A00707BF4/$file/9930012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paez and Berzon) concludes that the officers did not have probable cause to enter Johnson's property. Were not in hot pursuit when they searched the area outside the mushroom shed. That same majority also concludes that whether the search took 9190 place within the curtilage is a question that must be determined in the first instance by the district court. The decision of the district court is REVERSED. In an attempt to apprehend another person who was a misdemeanor suspect last seen 30 minutes previously and whose whereabouts were unknown. A search warrant was issued and Johnson was subsequently indicted on one count of man9191 ufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Determining that the search was justified under the hot pursuit and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The threejudge panel of this Court assumed that the shed was not in an open field but was part of the curtilage. REMAND the case to the district court for factual findings and conclusions on whether the shed was in an open field or part of the curtilage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-1183.htm">01-1183 -- GALLO-LOEKS V. REYNOLDS -- 04/12/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court granted summary judgment to the county defendants because the press release was substantially true. Dismissed the federal claim against Reynolds because he was not a state actor. T.L. was then 13 years old. Reynolds was 18 years old. T.L. told her mother that she was going to a friend's house. While they were stranded. Appellant discovered that T.L. was not at her friend's house and called police. After the roads were cleared of snow and T.L. returned home. She talked with her parents and then was interviewed by Officer Philip Saraff of the Parker Police Department. Officer Saraff told her that sex was consensual if she agreed to it. T.L. then indicated that her sexual intercourse with Reynolds was consensual. T.L. indicated during this interview that she had agreed to have sex with Reynolds. Deputy Washburn included in his report a statement that T.L. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T shirt to school that read. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/079DD02389A871AF88256E5A00707AFA/$file/9910416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The latter is the residence of Defendant Zepeda Medrano. Attached to the warrant was a picture of 2844 Apricot Road. Apricot Road is an unsurfaced street along which are located a barn. Numbered mailboxes are located at the end of the street. The gas company's records show that there are only two residences on the property. All the residences on Apricot Road are located on one parcel of land. The lessees have done so informally. They realized that the residence authorized to be searched was not the residence pictured in the photograph. The door to the shed was open. Fled but was apprehended. These observations led them to believe that the shed was a methamphetamine laboratory. The officers also discovered that the shed was an outbuilding belonging to 2852 Apricot Road. He was approached by someone named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3ABECF405E8042C88256A34005C085A/$file/9910416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The latter is the residence of Defendant Zepeda Medrano. Attached to the warrant was a picture of 2844 Apricot Road. Apricot Road is an unsurfaced street along which are located a barn. Numbered mailboxes are located at the end of the street. The gas company's records show that there are only two residences on the property. All the residences on Apricot Road are located on one parcel of land. The lessees have done so informally. They realized that the residence authorized to be searched was not the residence pictured in the photograph. The door to the shed was open. Fled but was apprehended. These observations led them to believe that the shed was a methamphetamine laboratory. The officers also discovered that the shed was an outbuilding belonging to 2852 Apricot Road. He was approached by someone named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/021757P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Keith Dwayne Nelson was sentenced to death. They left the A 1 parking lot in a white Ford F 150 pickup truck that Nelson was driving. Nelson also told Robinson that he wanted to do this because he was going back to prison for other charges and that he wanted to go back for something big. He decided not to contact the police because he thought that Nelson must have been joking. Just three days later Michanne Mattson was attacked outside of her apartment building. Mattson was driving home from a friend's house in the early morning when she passed a white pickup truck parked alongside the road. Exclaiming that she had better shut up and that he was going to kill her. That now was the time to do it. Ten year old Pamela Butler was rollerblading in the street near her residence in the same area. The witness was able to write down the license plate number of the truckMissouri plate number 177 CE2. The truck was gone. The truck was found abandoned the next day in Kansas City. A police dog that had been provided with some of Pamela's clothing was dispatched to Nelson's mother's house and alerted to an afghan found inside the residence. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-3127a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Before he was apprehended. Was released in February 1993. He was taken into custody in Nigeria by United States authorities and brought to the United States for trial. As the air piracy statute under which he was prosecuted bars sequential prosecutions. As this provision only applies if certain additional jurisdictional re quirements are satisfied. (4) that his trial was fatally tainted by the introduction of evidence relating to the passengers' deaths. That this evidence should have been presented in a separate phase of the trial or. That it should have been presented in a less grisly form. (6) that the district court erred in assessing the restitution he was to pay to his victims as part of his sentence. (7) that the district court may have erred in its orders relating to the disclosure of classified government documents to the defense. The following account of the hijacking was not contested at Rezaq's trial. Rezaq is Palestinian. Was. He was accompanied by two other hijackers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1535.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Defendants/Appellants Jimmie Alzamora and Tariq Pervaz were indicted and charged with seven counts of fraud and related activities involving access devices to telephone calls transmitted by cellular phones. There was a hearing in the district court on a motion to suppress filed by Alzamora and Pervaz. The suppression motion was denied. Alzamora was sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $190. Pervaz was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the same amount as Alzamora $190. Is a question of law subject to de novo review. Ct. at 1661 must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Amount to . . . probable cause </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1186p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were separately tried for unrelated double homicides and sentenced to death. The appeals were initially heard by two separate panels of this court during roughly the same period. Is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044086p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were dismissed as parties to the petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Court's Order dated July 11. At issue in this case is the disposition of more than 14. Petitioners are 450 plaintiffs who originally filed their suits in Texas state courts. Removal was proper because the additional defendants were named solely as a means to defeat federal jurisdiction. After the actions were transferred to the docket of MDL 1203. The District Court held that the non diverse defendants were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1633.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief. Was on brief. The second of two successive appeals from a certification of extraditability is within our jurisdiction. BACKGROUND The seeds of this appeal were sown on June 1. Charges were preferred. Howard was apprehended. Who is black. Together with an order of commitment.1 See 18 U.S.C. 3184. 1The magistrate found that all the basic prerequisites to extradition had been fulfilled in that the United States and the U.K. are parties to an extradition treaty. A criminal charge is pending against Howard in the U.K. The charged offense is an extraditable crime under the treaty. The person charged is the same person whom the government wants extradited. An arrest warrant is outstanding. None of these findings are contested on appeal. 3 Howard appealed. Murder was an extraditable offense. Instruments of ratification were exchanged on December 23. APPELLATE JURISDICTION The Supplementary Treaty stipulates that the trier's findings with regard to an article 3(a) defense are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim. We reject the notion that an excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim in the facts presented by this case. These Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment were denied without prejudice pending further discovery. Covington were dispatched to Plaintiffs' residence. Rick Cortez was asleep when he was suddenly awakened by noises and lights in his fenced (1) Plaintiff Rick Cortez is actually the husband of the babysitter Tina Cortez. <hr> back yard. He repeatedly inquired what was going on. Placed him in the back of a patrol car where he was subjected to questioning. Tina Cortez was awakened by her husband as he got out of bed. The officer placed her in a separate patrol car where she was subjected to questioning. Miranda warnings are required for custodial interrogation occasioned by an arrest. Rick Cortez also informed the officers that his handcuffs were too tight and caused excessive pain. Despite his declaration and the fact that Rick Cortez supposedly was not under arrest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1130.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</U> was on brief. We hold that a plaintiff who alleges that local educational officials have flouted her right to a free and appropriate public education may not bring suit for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first exhausting the administrative process established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We next conclude that same sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (although. The upshot is that we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYxNDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6149-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That plaintiff did not have a private right of action to sue for the disclosure of his personal identifying information under either the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/97-7162a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Jonathan M. They alleged that some class members were deficient in the English language and that the District had failed to provide qualified interpreters to these inmates when they appeared at parole and disciplinary hearings and when they sought medical care. I There are 9. Mem bers of the prison staff are fluent in a total of forty seven languages. 1 The district court certified a class consisting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/995111.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their child was subjected to an unconstitutional search and that. Plaintiffs argue that the school's drug policy is unconstitutionally vague and assert a state law claim for assault and battery against the health care provider and nurse ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/033615P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Wesley Thorn was charged with one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and 2252(b) (2000). United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 1 entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge.2 He was sentenced to twenty seven months of imprisonment with three years of supervised release. The child pornography at issue was discovered on computer media found in Thorn's DCSE office in Joplin. Began investigating purported workplace misconduct after she received complaints that Thorn was inaccessible and had copied and distributed non work related e mail messages throughout the office. Thorn called in sick and was informed of the decision to place him on leave. Was illegally obtained. 2 2 informed Thorn that he could not remove anything from his office. Thorn agreed to this arrangement and gave instructions as to where the documents were located in the desk. DCSE is an agency within the Missouri Department of Social Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-4931.man.html">LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964931.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1408p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether a liability insurance policy's Sexually Transmitted Disease Exclusion excludes coverage for claims arising out of a gym member's expulsion from a gym due to his Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/649B6CCF717207D988256DB200775935/$file/0250380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No suspicion that an individual will commit or has committed another offense is required. Nor is there any requirement that the sample be taken in order to aid in the investigation of a particular crime. The DNA sample3 is turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The DNA evidence is then permanently available for future use in connection with the investigation and prosecution of crimes.4 Federal. Local law enforcement officials who conduct such investigations are able to compare CODIS informa2 Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a complex molecule which is found in the nuclei of human cells and carries a person's genetic information. A molecule of DNA is comprised of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other and connected by rungs. The strands and rungs link thousands of small components which exist in a number of biochemical variations and are arranged differently for every individual except for identical twins. At 27 (2000) [hereinafter DNA Act House Report]. 4 Although the DNA sample can identify the person from whom it was taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4931.man.html">LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> (2) whether an officer conducting a traffic stop may ask the driver about the presence of weapons in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. We hold that the officer's question about the existence of a loaded weapon in the vehicle was justified on the grounds of officer safety. An officer may ask the stopped motorist whether there is a loaded firearm in the car even in the absence of particularized suspicion of the existence of such a firearm. The objective safety risks to officers during routine traffic stops in general have led courts to approve reasonable steps to insure officer safety. The admitted impetus for establishing a checkpoint at this location was the officers' suspicion that the defendant. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951529P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was drug tested and subsequently terminated when his specimen tested positive for marijuana metabolites. We find that there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact: the motivations for requiring Based on Robert Landon to take a drug test on the night of March 2. A reasonable juror could find that Northwest's business reason for requiring Landon to take the drug test was pretextual. A jury must determine whether the proffered reason was a pretext for racial discrimination. invasion of privacy. Summary judgment was inappropriate with respect to Landon's claims of racial discrimination and We reverse the district court's dismissal of those two claims and remand them for trial. Is an African American male hired by appellee. Cleaned NWA Landon was employed pursuant to a bargaining agreement between NWA and the International Association of Machinists. Landon was unloading a NWA airplane using a conveyer belt machine. handle. Because the accident was his third of the year. He could expect to have some time off and that he would be required to take a drug and alcohol test. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5535a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Favish were on the briefs. With him on the brief were David W. Taken at the scene of his death and at the autopsy (as well as other documents about which there is no longer any dispute). The first question is whether. We have already held that the protected privacy interests do extend beyond the interests of a document's subject while alive. There were also two separate independent counsel inquiries. First it argued that because only Foster's privacy was at stake. If that were so. Say ing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0797n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kellogg Kellogg's daughter revealed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116118.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When Young and his co defendants elected to ship the ill gotten proceeds of their tax fraud scheme through Federal Express despite explicit warnings on the airbill and envelopes that (1) sending cash was illegal. Sales of these fuels for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0445p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the intrusions at issue are not Fourth Amendment searches. The area immediately surrounding the house was cleared. Which was not enclosed by a fence. Each of which is discussed below in more detail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3EBFF0C18A46AA6C882570E600792EAF/$file/0256648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Law enforcement officers must have probable cause to believe that the parolee resides at the house to be searched. While this appeal was pending. It is sufficient for us to conclude that. It was not clearly established that any suspicion of wrong doing on the part of the parolee was needed. Are as follows.1 On February 20. Janae We recognize that some of the material facts are contradicted by the officers' deposition testimony and declarations. Was released on parole from state prison. Jamerson was required to consent that his person. Motley testified that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/962699P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barrett was again tried and convicted. His second conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. The State then sought a rehearing and the matter was reheard en banc. Were found several miles apart in rural Iowa on the morning of February 23. Cynthia Walker had been shot three times and was found dead Because we agree with the panel's holdings on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and Barrett's First and Fifth Amendment claims. Those portions of the panel's vacated opinion are essentially restated herein in Parts II(A) and (C). 22 on a gravel road. Carol Ann Willits had been shot once through the temple and was found in the front seat of her car on a nearby blacktop road. She was blindfolded and was wearing men's work gloves. The gun was found in her lap. Cynthia Walker was Barrett's girlfriend at the time of her death. Carol Ann Willits may also have been dating him. Although her friends testified that the two were only friends. Was found in the car near her body. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/005237.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All three were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. One of which is a question of first impression for this Court whether and under what circumstances the trial court must give a jury instruction on venue. Factual Background In the following recitation of the facts on which Appellants' convictions were based. Del Rosario told Daluro that he was getting travel documents for a woman named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013751u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Winters was married to the late Ron Patel until early 1999. During their marriage Patel was an editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Was a participant in a 401(k) plan sponsored by Knight Ridder. While the two were married. Winters was the beneficiary of Patel's 401(k) account. Patel told Winters that he was having an affair with Mary Frangipanni and that he wanted a divorce. Winters was represented throughout the invasion of privacy litigation by the firm of Sprague & Sprague. Winters was represented by Gary Borger in these proceedings. In relevant part: It is further agreed and ordered as follows: 1. Winters under this stipulation of settlement are paid in full. (1)$100. Winters is paid in full. 3. Ronald Patel hereby waives any claim which he may have to seek consolidation of the Pennsylvania litigation with this matter or to assert the defense of the New Jersey Entire Controversy Doctrine in this action. Over thirteen months after the Consent Decree was entered. All claim set forth or which could have been set forth arising from or with respect to ... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5283a.html">NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS V. GALE NORTON<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5283a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Lawrence R. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether Exemption 6 of the Freedom of Information Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0962p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether the waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States set forth either in the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEzODAtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1380-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A pool table was damaged. That his rifle was missing. There is no record support that somebody else was with Titemore when he returned to Lothian's property. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Road. The two men were nervous. They informed Trooper Baxter that Titemore was probably drunk and most likely had Lothian's rifle. They were concerned that if Titemore mistook the trooper for Lothian. Which was equipped with a motion sensing light that would illuminate Trooper Baxter's uniform. Trooper Baxter told Lothian and Tatro that he would He was figure out how to proceed as he approached the house. aware that Titemore was a convicted felon. Titemore's home is a small. Have no doors. the house. There is a On the western side of the light and a nonfunctioning doorbell. house. At the top of the driveway a small garage is attached to the northwestern corner of Titemore's home. The home is located on land adjacent to the intersection of Titemore Woods and Patton Shore Roads. The two sides of the property not adjacent to the roads are demarcated by a thicket of woods and a 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fence along the western edge of the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964931.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arise out of plaintiffs' claims that their banks improperly disclosed information authorities. relating to their checking accounts to federal The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie AntiMoney Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/95-8230.man.html">CHANDLER V. MILLER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Chandler v. Each such candidate shall file a certificate ... stating that such candidate has been tested for illegal drugs ... and that the results of such test are negative.... Plaintiff appellants are members of the Libertarian Party seeking the offices of Lieutenant Governor. Is basically barred from holding office. Additional aspects of the drug testing scheme were outlined by the district court: testing may. The test is designed to reveal the presence or absence of the indicia of five illegal drugs. No information unrelated to drug use is contemplated by the statute. Be the basis for barring a candidate from the ballot.<p> II.<p> <p> That the tests at issue are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment seems settled. <i>See Skinner v. This test </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/99-2344.htm">99-2344 -- SOUTHWEST AIR AMBULANCE INC. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 10/16/2001<BR></A><BR> John Richardson is the president of Southwest. Which is owned and operated by the City of Las Cruces (the City). <p> On June 1. Are prohibited from offering any commercial service to the public upon or within the boundaries of the Airport. <p> <u>Id.</u> at </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whichever is greater. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). Universal presented numerous arguments against coverage that depended upon the policy's definitions of the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1092b.html">ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5250a.html">KIMBERLIN BRETT C. V. DOJ<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1597p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Poritz was the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey when this suit was instituted. Poritz resigned as Attorney General and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Peter Verniero was appointed the Attorney General. Peter Verniero is automatically substituted as a party plaintiff for Deborah T. We disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Who was then eight and one half months pregnant. Was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section. The child was stillborn.2 An autopsy was performed. A death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4FAD9D22F4DED6D88257170007CF10C/$file/0415241.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although that suit settled and its merits are not at issue here. During the litigation scores of documents were filed under seal in accord with a stipulated protective order. KAMAKANA'S CASE Kamakana was a detective in the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). He was in the elite Criminal 5396 KAMAKANA v. Kamakana was transferred out of CIU. The crux of his claim was that his transfer was in retaliation for his reporting misconduct and illegal acts by other HPD officers to his superiors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The order noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5247a.html">COMPUTER PROFS SCL V. US SCRT SVC<BR></A><BR> </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2279_048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brock was not present during the search. Three individuals were found in the home who identified themselves as Reginald Godsey. Brock transported methamphetamine between 3381 and 3375 using a silver suitcase and was storing 16 to 17 pounds of methamphetamine inside a safe in his room at 3381. Was called to 3381 with Yoba. They were released and were not charged in connection with this case. Brock was indicted on six counts: two counts of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence recovered from 3381 on the grounds that the dog sniff was an illegal warrantless search and the search warrant was not otherwise supported by probable cause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1522.htm">00-1522 -- U.S. V. GILL -- 07/24/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Orlando Gill was charged with one count of making counterfeit United States currency. Donna Boatwright and Dinah Lee Shaw were working at the Suburban Lodge. Boatwright was the general manager of the motel. Gill was a guest at the Suburban. His occupancy was due to expire at 11:00 a.m. that day.<a href= </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0430p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and 155 counts of money laundering. Contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Jamieson further alleges that the government was guilty of misconduct in making certain prejudicial statements in closing argument The Honorable William W Schwarzer. He contends that he is entitled to be re sentenced under United States v. The marketing of viaticals is legal. The record establishes that Jamieson was aware of the risk of investing in fraudulent viatical policies. The viator's date of HIVpositive or AIDS diagnosis actually preceded the date the policy was issued by the insurance company. Jamieson gave testimony under oath to the Ohio Department of Commerce's Division of Securities that Liberte Capital never reviewed the policies it purchased to determine whether they were fraudulent because (contrary to his earlier description of how viators obtain fraudulent policies) he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5061.htm">98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION -- 04/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2678_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ricardo Villegas was indicted on one count of illegal re entry into the United States after having been deported previously on account of two aggravated felony convictions. A hearing was held before a magistrate judge who recommended denial of Mr. Officers Thomas Obergon and Michael Lutz were both assigned to the Milwaukee Police Department's ( </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Reed was making dinner. While they were talking. Henyard told her he was going to a night club in Orlando and to see his father in South Florida. The Lewis girls were crying and upset. This is Satan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5134.htm">02-5134 -- CARDTOONS V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION -- 07/14/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0729n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) his trial should have been transferred or the jury sequestered due to extensive media coverage of the crimes with which he was charged. BACKGROUND The facts are taken from the evidence presented at trial and are viewed in the light most favorable to the government. No. 04 5780 Goins and Justin Jones first met when the two were patients in the psychiatric ward of an army hospital at Fort Benning. Both men had gone AWOL and thought they were likely to be discharged from service in the army. Goins suggested that the two could rob a bank in Virginia once they were discharged. The loan was made in anticipation of a tax refund of the same amount. In testimony Goins contends should have been excluded. Goins represented that he was an undercover police officer investigating drug activity. Jones followed Goins's lead and pretended that he too was an undercover officer. Goins told Woltz he suspected the cash was drug money but told Woltz he could have the money back if his supervisor (Woltz worked at a nearby restaurant) confirmed it was actually tip money or wages. </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1304_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gale Nettles was charged with attempting to destroy the federal courthouse in Chicago. He was convicted on all charges except for attempting to provide material OE Boyce F. When Gale Nettles was sentenced to a twenty four month prison sentence after pleading guilty to the crime of counterfeiting United States currency. A former rancher and auctioneer who was serving time for racketeering and fraud convictions. Nettles remarked that a larger bomb </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1447.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 50. Delete the sentence that starts with </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0206p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This program was funded in part by the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG). Numerous former teenagers who participated in Micro City Government now claim that LFUCG continued to support the program even after learning that Berry was sexually molesting them. Although several procedural issues are raised. The key issue is whether to vacate two orders dismissing earlier class action lawsuits against LFUCG brought by Berry's victims. The purpose of the program was to provide part time summer employment for disadvantaged area youth. Berry was subsequently convicted on 12 counts of sodomy and abuse of minors in criminal proceedings brought by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They allege that LFUCG officials were informed of the abuse on a number of occasions. LFUCG continued to fund MicroCity Government and is alleged to have actively concealed Berry's behavior. Page 3 allege that LFUCG retained Berry as the director of the program even after LFUCG officials were aware of the abuse. That at least one Mayor of Lexington refused to cut off funding or expose Berry because doing so would not have been </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033268P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individually and on behalf of a plaintiff class consisting of all secondary public school students who have started the seventh grade in the Little Rock School District as of the 1999 2000 school year. Suspicionless searches of their persons and belongings by school officials is unconstitutional. Jane Doe is a secondary school student in the LRSD. Doe's classroom were ordered to leave the room after removing everything from their pockets and placing all of their belongings. While the students were in the hall outside their classroom. The parties have stipulated that LRSD has a practice of regularly conducting searches of randomly selected classrooms in this manner. Individually and on behalf of a class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984489.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are as follows. As they were leaving the bank with over $10. The police officer was unhurt. A security device used by banks that is activated when stolen money is removed from the bank. Police dogs were used to trace the men to a house. Which was later determined to have been burglarized. Bobbitt's fingerprints were found on the cassette tape and on one of the cans of lighter fluid. A hat similar to one that Jones had been known to wear was found in the cemetery near other evidence from the crime. Clothing and other items associated with the bank robbery and with Bobbitt and Jones were found in the house. Bobbitt and Jones were observed wearing clothing resembling that stolen from the burglarized house. Bobbitt and Jones were seen entering a room in which two coconspirators. Sims' girlfriend was asked to carry a bag for Sims and Sellers as she accompanied them to a restaurant. She saw money in the bag and was told that it was $10. Jones was also overheard having a conversation regarding laundering money through drug dealing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1462.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="148"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1241.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 13. Were on brief for appellant Samuel J. Was on brief for appellee. * Of the Second Circuit. Concemi was sentenced to 36 months of incarceration to be followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution and a fine. Ribeck was sentenced to 24 months of incarceration to be followed by two years of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution and a fine. It was alleged that Concemi. Hajjar was a loan originator for ComFed. ComFed Mortgage Corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of ComFed Savings Bank. 2 The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="147"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4294.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Scott Barnett was a Sergeant with the Utah Department of Public Safety. Overton for at least an hour and a half before they were released. He suspected they were dealing heroin and cocaine. Gomez that there was a detached structure on the property. Gomez's review of the Questar Gas records indicated that the gas account for 44 West 2700 South was listed under the name of Melissa Harman. The records indicated that the detached structure was built in 1954 and contained a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/013139u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eiland was not present at the time of entry or during the search. The District Court denied the motion because it was disputed whether Jackson and his fellow officers knocked and announced. Our review is plenary. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Will affirm. He did not have standing to bring a Section 1983 claim for noncompliance with the knock andannounce rule because he was not present during the search. While we agree that Eiland did not have standing. We will. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313177.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Off duty conduct available for pay per view on the Internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs appellants Ronald Thaeter and Timothy Moran were deputy sheriffs with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EE6051B4C23802D88256DA2005AB9CE/$file/0235422.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They are correct. We recognize that Washington voters are long accustomed to a blanket primary and acknowledge that this form of primary has gained a certain popularity among many of the voters. Our decision is compelled by the Supreme Court's landmark decision in California Democratic Party v. BACKGROUND Washington's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F91B4230881B4C68825731A00823BCA/$file/0416963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Developmentally disabled Medicaid beneficiaries ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3299-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At which he was found guilty on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371. 541 U.S. 36 The jury was unable to reach a verdict on substantive charges of bank robbery. (2) the receipt into evidence of items seized during a warrantless search of the apartment where Snype was arrested violated the Fourth Amendment. (a) was not supported by the record evidence. (b) violated his Sixth Amendment right to have findings of fact resulting in a higher maximum sentence made by a jury rather than the trial court. (c) was the result of an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. We conclude that the alleged errors are without merit or. B. The Robbers' Shootout with the Police While the robbery was in effect. Which was in fact responding to a radio alert about the crime. Because Partlow and Snype were masked. No teller or bank customer was able to identify them as the robbers. Shots were fired from that vehicle at the officers. The four confederates drove to Telephone records showed that all five conspirators were in constant contact with one another in the hours during the July 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0329p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court's dismissal of this claim was inappropriate. I. Plaintiff was employed by the Pauline Warfield Lewis Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964673.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 96 4673 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Pruitt was a South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agent and Nixon was his confidential informant. The marijuana transaction was part of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0058p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is located in Fort Thomas. Seventh and eighth grades and is part of the Fort Thomas Public School District. The Council has responsibility for setting school policy that is consistent with the school board's policies and that is designed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002130.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 4 the spelling of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3888_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It held that the records were exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment requirements. That 1 maintain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="145"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5056a.html">CRUMPTON MADOLYN L. V. STONE, MICHAEL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052785p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REAL VEBA is a multipleemployer/employee welfare benefit trust. Who are beneficiaries of the REAL VEBA Trust. Koresko is the sole shareholder in Koresko and Associates. 4 Community Trust Company (CTC) is state chartered trust company. It is the trustee of REAL VEBA and maintains an account in REAL VEBA's name. CTC claims that the subpoena requires it to disclose documents which are either personal financial records of REAL VEBA beneficiaries or copies of documents which the Secretary has already received from the respondents in Koresko.3 Therefore. CTC argued that the Secretary could not enforce the subpoena because REAL VEBA is not covered by ERISA and. Because the scope of the investigation is beyond the Secretary's investigatory authority. CTC is forbidden by the GLBA and the RFPA from releasing the information. CTC has appealed the District Court's rulings that DOL did not need to establish jurisdiction and that REAL VEBA is not protected by the RFPA. The Secretary of Labor has broad authority to conduct investigations to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate Title I of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1134. 6 4 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1373a.html">DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 436TH AIRLIFT WING, V. FLRA<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the briefs was William Kanter. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were William R. Grile argued the cause for intervenor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Mark D. ) grievance without affording the labor union of which the employee is a member notice and an opportunity to be present pursuant to 5 U.S.C. s 7114(a)(2)(A) (2000).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The FLRA seeks enforcement of its order.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Air Force argues that an EEO complaint is not a ". That it does not trigger the Union's formal discussion rights under section 7114(a)(2)(A).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Air Force also argues that the FLRA's interpretation of section 7114(a)(2)(A) is impermissible. 706 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Be cause we agree with the FLRA that its interpretation is permissible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Dayton clinic is required to be licensed. WMPC argued that the written transfer agreement requirement was unconstitutional as applied to the Dayton clinic. The case was then transferred to United States District Judge Algenon Marbley. We affirm the district court with respect to its conclusion that WMPC's procedural due process rights were violated. Its director is authorized to establish quality standards. The director promulgated a requirement that ASFs have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. It is solely within the director's discretion as to whether a variance or waiver should be granted. WMPC is owned by Dr. The Dayton clinic is approximately forty five to fifty five miles away from the next closest abortion clinic in Cincinnati. It is also the only clinic in southern Ohio providing abortion services 1 ASFs are free standing facilities where outpatient surgery is routinely performed. He is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2254.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Nora Vargas Acosta and Vargas & Ram rez Law Office were on brief for appellant. Durand were on brief for appellees. No resolution of the motion for reconsideration was issued. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Was a practicing licensed securities broker and licensed supervisor of other securities brokers. OCFI's investigation eventually included the plaintiff himself. 1 The facts recited herein are either not in dispute or are alleged by the plaintiff. 2 On January 27. That the plaintiff was to cease all supervisory and administrative functions at FCC for one year. The plaintiff was afforded an administrative hearing on the issue of the revocation of his license. There is no evidence that the plaintiff raised any search and seizure claims. This step was a procedural prerequisite to seeking judicial review. This is so because all or some of the charges made to the Defendant are of a penal character that entail fines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2214.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Wildgrubes were residents of the Village of Angel Fire. Angel Fire is located in northern New Mexico and has a population of approximately 1600. The (1) The factual recitation is based on a consideration of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Wildgrubes. MIMICS is a computer software company that provides software to financial institutions nationwide. The Wildgrubes' landlord at the Commons was Robert Morrow. The Commons was zoned R 3. Which did not permit use for business purposes that are not ancillary to the permitted residential use. Hasford was a resident of Angel Fire and during the relevant time period served as the Village building inspector. Hasford was also an ex officio member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Was <hr> politically opposed to two other members of the Village Council. Who are also named as defendants in this action. Hasford was aligned with Councilors Stansbury and McKinley. Hasford's inspection was allegedly prompted by the observation of building materials outside the building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB91C22F8EB5399288256E120082561A/$file/0215215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The warrant was broad. A thirteen page inventory with general descriptions of the seized items was compiled. The items were subsequently transferred to a Monterey County warehouse. None of the seized items were used in prosecuting the robbery and murder. Along with two computers that were not listed in the subpoena. Although most of the Hell's Angels' belongings were returned to them a few weeks later. The Second The administrative subpoena was issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876(a). The § 1983 claims were predicated upon an invasion of privacy and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1373a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was William Kanter. With him on the brief were William R. With him on the brief were Mark D. Dover Air Force Base ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-5424a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Steven H. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. The facts are as follows: On September 22. Demonstrate he was a model prisoner during the events at issue here. He was denied parole. In part because the distance made it difficult for FCI Allenwood </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 6. Is amended to read: Traditionally. We have reviewed the district court's findings of fact. 1663 (1996) (noting that findings of historical fact are reviewed only for clear error and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2993_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was on parole and electronically monitored. The agreement It is apparent that the Host Site Agreement's purpose was to ensure that the homeowner Mr. Green knew that the parolee was subject to search at any time and consented to such search. Placed his own initials next to (continued...) 1 No. 04 2993 3 provided: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/003084.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Once the drugs were suppr essed and the prosecution dismissed. The narrow issue presented in this appeal is what type of damages Hector can obtain under the Fourth Amendment. We will affirm. 2 I The Supreme Court has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C0193A9380D112D88256C3E0058CAA7/$file/0155304.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: It is a sad state of affairs when police officers must stand between a mother and her minor daughter to keep the peace. Such as it was. Was reasonable under the definitive special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Miscellaneous things that were and have always been. Were contained in the bedroom on [sic] the minor child at the time she left to go visit her father on July 29. The day after the Order was entered. Henderson responded that her daughter could only have the clothes. Henderson was yelling and screaming that her daughter could not have anything else. While Officer Godfrey was trying to explain the Order to Henderson. Henderson threw her feet from underIt is not entirely clear from the record when Officer May arrived to provide support to Officers Godfrey and Samarin. 1 HENDERSON v. He was concerned that an unidentified male. A motion for partial summary judgment was filed by Henderson and a motion for summary judgment was filed by the defendants. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY Summary judgment is appropriate if. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5424a.html">LATCHMIE TOOLASPRASHAD V. BUREAU OF PRISONS<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause as amicus curiae on the side of appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0415p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson was charged in a six count second superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine (Count One). Ronald Brady also were named in the Count One conspiracy charge. Barnes was named in the * The Honorable Gerald E. Robinson was sentenced in absentia on November 27. Robinson was also sentenced to 60 months imprisonment as to each of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DD653864B22C2868825707A007E63A7/$file/0335950.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are parents of adopted children with special needs1 Children with special needs include. Is a member of a sibling group which will be placed together and is difficult to place because there are three or more children. Is a member of an ethnic/racial/cultural minority. Or is eight years of age or older. R. 413 130 0020. 2 Oregon's Adoption Assistance Program is codified at Or. The federal statute provides that each grant recipient is entitled to a fair hearing before the applicable state agency to challenge any claim for benefits that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="144"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011596.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OF SOUTH CAROLINA Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which was then headed by Bobby Gist (EOP Director Gist). The two chief underlying premises of Parkman's complaint were: (1) that Ottervik and Whitson fabricated their allegations PARKMAN v. We will later specify the particular claims which Parkman presses on appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. In 1976 Parkman was promoted to a supervisory position in the Music Library. He was promoted to the position of Head Music Librarian. Parkman was entitled to certain procedural safeguards designed to protect his tenure status. 1990 overall were very positive. Parkman adamantly denied the Because this case is on appeal from the grant of the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The charging document was accompanied by a cover letter from EOP Director Gist specifically instructing Parkman not to discuss the charging document with any member of the faculty. OF SOUTH CAROLINA October 1995 Parkman had physically touched him against his will. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct29/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42069E20DC30AFAB8825722D007DEBE7/$file/0510653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) is amended as follows: On slip op. page 17359. PAOPAO 18699 of the weapon and the ammunition magazine was not based on a reasonable belief that the two items constituted evidence of a crime. (The situation would have been different had the jewels and the knife been visible. The gun and the magazine were hidden in the bag.). The seizure of Paopao's tan bag was the direct result of a plain view search in a commercial establishment where Paopao had no Fourth Amendment privacy interest and. Are DENIED. Future petitions for rehearing will not be entertained. Paopao also claims that the District Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charges because they were unconstitutional as applied to him. The robbers posed as police officers and were armed. Honolulu Police Officer Joseph Lum ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-2000.htm">98-2000 -- WINTERS V. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE CO. -- 09/09/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Transamerica Insurance Company (Transamerica). After the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 was enacted. He also made statements indicating a preference for tenants who were not Hispanic or Jewish. <p> The Mercers and the Andersons filed complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Have filed bankruptcy. Plaintiff James Burke is the Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. <p> On October 16. Because they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their claims that the insurer breached the contract. Summary judgment is proper when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC2B9D62091E5B4F88256B9D007A1FCF/$file/0170941.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: At slip op. p.16333. Add the following: The right </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="143"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000).1 Amaechi sought damages arising out of what Amaechi claims was a sexually intrusive search executed upon her by West incident to her arrest for violation of a town noise ordinance. Because this is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment. The officer is entitled to appeal the district court's denial of his qualified immunity defense at the conclusion of trial. Once the factual issues have been resolved. Believing that Hargrave was unnecessarily impolite in his handling of the matter. A nude Amaechi was in her bathroom preparing for bed. (Appellee's Br. at 5). 5 Amaechi was never convicted of this offense. She resolved the dispute with her neighbor through mediation. 6 This was West's first arrest of a woman. He resigned from the police force approximately six months later. 7 The housedress was made of a light weight fabric. It was missing all of its buttons from immediately below the chest. Pfluger told her she was under arrest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415078.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will refer to Walley as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2415_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Facts We have detailed previously the facts of this case in Bleavins v. Bartels issued an administrative warrant listing the boats as property to be seized. 1 One of the boats was mounted on a third trailer. Bleavins' trailers did not violate the Fourth Amendment and that the district court had erred in determining that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. We invited the parties to address two particular issues: (1) whether the warrant at issue was a valid Fourth Amendment warrant and (2) whether the seized trailers were located within the curtilage of Mr. The defendants would have violated the Amendment if Mr. Bleavins had a legitimate privacy interest in the area in which the trailers were seized. We noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.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="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5227a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Wilma A. Remand the case to the district court to determine whether the deceased requestor's son is the proper party for substitution within the meaning of Fed. Before this protracted litigation was completed. Ruling that the FOIA statute is not remedial and thus. That whether a cause of action based on a federal statute survives the death of the plaintiff is a question of federal law. A court's role is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE4463BB96A33E2F88256BB8007E1CBD/$file/0016860.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over Appel 6916 ORSAY v. Because we are reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal. Appellants are Deputy United States Marshals in the employment of Appellee United States Marshals Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1262.htm">03-1262 -- ROBINSON V. GUNJA -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Noah R. 1915A on the ground that the complaint is legally frivolous is reviewed <em>de novo</em> or for abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/281EFBD7723969BA88256E62007F5233/$file/0250664.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was not Bautista's counterfeiting operation that led the police to his motel room. It was the credit card used to reserve the room. Upon being informed that the card was stolen. Bautista was apprehended away from the motel. BAUTISTA 3785 Bautista was indicted for manufacturing counterfeit currency. Both motions were denied and Bautista entered a conditional guilty plea. We must now determine whether a registered occupant of a motel room retains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the face of an unconfirmed report that a stolen credit card number was used to reserve the room. The police officer's entry into the motel room was a warrantless intrusion. Which was not salvaged by Mrs. Was nevertheless involuntary. Because Bautista was not evicted from his motel room by the manager. Because the entry was not supported by probable cause. Because it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to determine that Bautista's testimony was not credible. California was reserved in Bautista's name. Was for six nights and listed Bautista as the sole guest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994793.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 99 4793 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Hambrick was arrested in his Albemarle County home following a search warrant executed by the Albemarle County Police and federal officials on July 10. Hambrick was a Captain in the Albemarle County Police Department. He was indicted for possession of child pornography. Who is a member of a regional task force against Internet crimes aimed at children. McLaughlin was on line on a chat room called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611892.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only question remaining before us is whether public morality remains a sufficient rational basis for the challenged statute after the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. As well as vendors of sexual devices operating both in typical retail storefronts and in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910983.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This declaratory judgment action presents important issues of Florida law that have not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issues to the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether such allegations constitute an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-10983.man.html">ALLSTATE INS. CO. V. GINSBERG (12/20/2000, NO. 99-10983)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-10983.man.html">ALLSTATE INS. CO. V. GINSBERG (12/20/2000, NO. 99-10983)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="141"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910983.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This declaratory judgment action presents important issues of Florida law that have not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issues to the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether such allegations constitute an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051058P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fontaine Diamond Sherman and Tremayne Scoggins were convicted after a jury trial of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Scoggins was also convicted of using a communication facility to facilitate the commission of a drug offense. Sherman was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment. Scoggins was sentenced to a term of 360 months. I. Scoggins and Sherman were indicted. Larry Brown (who was eventually acquitted) with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Scoggins also was charged with three counts of 2 distributing various quantities of cocaine base. Both Scoggins and Sherman were charged with using a communication facility to commit a drug felony. The indictment charged that Scoggins and Sherman were organizers and leaders of the criminal activity. Was unable to agree unanimously on a drug quantity. The jury also found that Scoggins was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-16633.opn.html">MASON V. FORD MOTOR CO., INC. (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16633)<BR></A><BR> Died after the Ford Explorer in which he was a passenger crashed with another vehicle. Evidence showed that Dick Bob survived the crash but was unable to get out of the vehicle before he was overcome by post collision fire and heat. Plaintiff sought to hold Ford liable on two theories: (i) Ford's conduct in designing or testing (or both) the fuel tank was negligent. (ii) the fuel tank was defectively designed such that Ford was strictly liable. The verdict form asked two separate questions before addressing damages: whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's negligence claim and whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's defective product claim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-16633.opn.html">MASON V. FORD MOTOR CO., INC. (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16633)<BR></A><BR> Died after the Ford Explorer in which he was a passenger crashed with another vehicle. Evidence showed that Dick Bob survived the crash but was unable to get out of the vehicle before he was overcome by post collision fire and heat. Plaintiff sought to hold Ford liable on two theories: (i) Ford's conduct in designing or testing (or both) the fuel tank was negligent. (ii) the fuel tank was defectively designed such that Ford was strictly liable. The verdict form asked two separate questions before addressing damages: whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's negligence claim and whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's defective product claim.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0985p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that no payment is due for time spent in public relations efforts. We will disallow those fees as well as those for duplicative work. Other claims that were not supported by evidence at a hearing on fees or that were improperly inflated because the tasks performed were easily delegable to personnel with substantially lower hourly rates. Will also be denied. A consent decree was entered. It was not long before the controversy erupted again. The plaintiff class filed a motion to have the court hold the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in contempt for failing to adhere to the terms of the consent decree. 000 and that matter is not at issue. An award of fees and expenses in this case is permissible under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and under the court's inherent power to reimburse a party for outlays incurred in securing an adjudication of contempt. The formula for awarding fees in the contempt context is usually the more generous. The innocent party is entitled to be made whole for the losses it incurs as the result of the contemnors' violations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981749.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the dismissal by the District Court. 2 Plaintiff John J. Was assigned in January 1994 to investigate possible insider trading violations growing out of a proposed bank merger. Criminal charges were lodged against Hunter in state court. Were married in May 1995. He starts sharing with her information which we believe she is now using to demand two million dollars of Mr. It is this action that presently concerns us. 1. Hunter was convicted of molestation and sentenced to eight to fourteen years imprisonment. Was sentenced to a term of incarceration. That conviction is presently on appeal. 4 The section 1985(2) count asserted that Hunter and Bochetto had conspired to file a frivolous lawsuit and disseminate defamatory information to the media to intimidate and punish Heffernan so as to affect his attendance and testimony as a witness against Hunter in federal court proceedings. It held that witnesses did not have standing to bring an action under section 1985(2). Heffernan was granted leave to amend the section 1985(1) claim with respect to the publicity campaign. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016633.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died after the Ford Explorer in which he was a passenger crashed with another vehicle. Evidence showed that Dick Bob survived the crash but was unable to get out of the vehicle before he was overcome by post collision fire and heat. Plaintiff sought to hold Ford liable on two theories: (i) Ford's conduct in designing or testing (or both) the fuel tank was negligent. (ii) the fuel tank was defectively designed such that Ford was strictly liable. The verdict form asked two 2 separate questions before addressing damages: whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's negligence claim and whether Ford was liable on Plaintiff's defective product claim.1 The jury found in favor of Ford on the negligence claim and in favor of the Plaintiff on the defective product claim. Do not answer Question 3. 3 claim and liability on Plaintiff's strict liability claim are inconsistent and require a new trial. Whether these verdicts are inconsistent under Georgia product's liability law raises an important issue of Georgia law. Do not have to decide this issue unless Ford preserved properly for appellate review the issue of verdict inconsistency. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-6008.htm">01-6008 -- CUDJOE V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.12 -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR> He was evaluated by his teacher and the school counselor. These evaluations and recommendations were recorded in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032134P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. There was a grocery store on one corner. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0155p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Lawsons claim that they were denied the right to vote when they refused to disclose their social security numbers as a condition to exercising their right to vote to the Shelby County Election Commission. Public Law 93 579 is an amendment to the Freedom of Information/Privacy Act. A junior faculty member was notified that he had been denied tenure. Was given a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Beam Karen Tandy is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellant Angel McClary Raich ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1954p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We sustained a defendant's claim that the government's investigatory misconduct was so egregious that the due process clause demanded dismissal of the indictment against him. This holding was predicated on a pair of Supreme Court cases that appeared to recognize such a defense. In contrast to some other circuits which have never recognized the defense or no longer do so. Though in the twenty years since Twigg we have not found another set of facts that satisfy its rigorous requirements. Defendant Angela Nolan Cooper contends that the government's misconduct in its investigation of her was sufficiently egregious enough to warrant this extraordinary relief. Became the target of an Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/971565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were The Honorable Mark W. Plaintiff Henry Greer is the administrator of the estate of Mora Patricia Greer. Frisch are employed by the State of Iowa as probation and parole officers of the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. Perry Stevens was subject to the control and custody of the Third Judicial District Department of Correctional Services due to his conviction and sentence for the commission of one or more felonies in the State of Iowa. Stevens was under the control and authority of defendants due to their positions as probation and parole officers. Stevens was Mora Greer's boyfriend. Before Stevens was incarcerated. Or reasonably should have known. That Stevens was infected with the HIV virus. Or reasonably should have known. That upon his release from incarceration Stevens was highly likely to engage in sexual relations with Mora Greer. Defendants failed to warn Mora Greer that Stevens was infected 4 with HIV. Mora Greer would not have permitted Stevens to stay in her home if she had been informed of Stevens' HIV positive status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/04-3092a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: When the police have reasonable suspicion that a person committed. Is committing. Or is about to commit a crime. The police have a witness or victim look at the suspect). Unzipping the outer jacket ultimately led the officers to discover that Askew was illegally carrying a gun. Askew's primary argument to this Court is that the initial unzipping of his jacket was an unreasonable search. Where specific findings are lacking. Noticing that Askew was a man with a mustache who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0205n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a criminal case. Defendant Appellant Robert Keith Ellis (Ellis) appeals the district court's denial of his pre trial motions to suppress tangible evidence and incriminating statements that were used against him at trial. Ellis claims that (1) law enforcement officers did not have probable cause to enter the residence where Ellis was staying. (3) Ellis was given warnings violative of Miranda v. A Kentucky indictment warrant for Ellis's arrest was issued for the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. Sheriff's Detective Richard Dalrymple (Dalrymple) received information from the Kentucky Department of Public Safety that it had received a complaint earlier that day that Ellis was staying at 1867 Lily Road and was manufacturing methamphetamine in the residence.1 Dalrymple contacted Kentucky State Police Detective Jason O'Bannon (O'Bannon) and learned of the outstanding arrest warrant. Which was a trailer home. O'Bannon testified that he received information from Dalrymple that Ellis was going to participate in a drug transaction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/96-1197.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. GARZON<BR></A><BR> Garzon was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Claiming it was the product of an unconstitutional search of his backpacks. The district court held that its ruling was controlled by our opinion in United States v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Defendant Appellant Carlos Julio Garzon was a passenger on Greyhound Lines Route 2192. The bus was scheduled to stop in Denver for a layover before traveling on to Chicago. Where Garzon was to transfer to a Cleveland bound bus. Route 2192 was at this time the subject of a drug interdiction effort coordinated by the Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-7008a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority. On the brief were Brendan V. The District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. The appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. Through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/953187P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wessels and Knief asked him if Rhoads was present. standing right there. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The following facts are viewed. Advised earlier in the day by his supervisor that all patrol officers were to issue summonses due to overcrowding at the city jail. McKinley read and acknowledged the following statement in writing: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT You are hereby advised that you are about to be questioned as part of an official administrative investigation of the Division of Police. You will be asked specific question (sic) which will relate directly and narrowly to the performance of your official duties or fitness as an employee or member of the Division of Police. The purpose of this interview is to assist in determining whether disciplinary action detective during the events of this case. Page 3 is warranted. Because this is an administrative and not a criminal investigation. The Division of Police will not use any of the answers or information gained from the interview in any criminal proceeding against you. The Division of Police will not release this information to any other agency without your approval and will ho[l]d it as confidential. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7008a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for </P> <P>amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility </P> <P>&. On the brief </P> <P>were Brendan V. </P> <P>the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti </P> <P>tled to qualified immunity because. It was not </P> <P>clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the </P> <P>officers' conduct would violate these rights. </P> <P>the appeal presents two questions of first impression in this </P> <P>circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held </P> <P>constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who </P> <P>is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. </P> <P>through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a </P> <P>constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to </P> <P>his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu </P> <P>nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right </P> <P>to the company of an adult child who is independent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="139"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BBADA028A095D58825712D00016761/$file/0335701.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a First Amendment student speech case. Students were released from school so that they could FREDERICK v. It was sustained. There was disorder at the torch passing. The uncontradicted evidence is that it had nothing to do with Frederick and his fellow sign holders. So it could not have been caused by it. There was some pro drug graffiti in the high school which the principal thought was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject of separate appeals before this court and thus we do not address them in this opinion. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/95-4197.htm">95-4197 -- J.B. V. WASHINGTON COUNTY (UTAH) -- 10/07/1997<BR></A><BR> The purpose of this seizure was to obtain an interview with the child outside her parents' presence to investigate a report that the child's father had sexually abused her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject 1. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/436D3CE0B35BCB6E88256E31007992C5/$file/0215215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. Finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The warrant was broad. A thirteen page inventory with general descriptions of the seized items was compiled. The items were subsequently transferred to a Monterey County warehouse. None of the seized items were used in prosecuting the robbery and murder. Along with two computers that were not listed in the subpoena. Although most of the Hell's Angels' belongings were returned to them a few weeks later. Several The administrative subpoena was issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 876(a). The § 1983 claims were predicated upon an invasion of privacy and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/95-4197.wpd.html">J.B. V. WASHINGTON COUNTY<BR></A><BR> The purpose of this seizure was to obtain an interview with the child outside her parents' presence to investigate a report that the child's father had sexually abused her. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. BACKGROUND Washington County Deputy Pamela Humphreys was presented with a dilemma when she received an eyewitness report that a seven year old child. The school interview procedure was not available because L.B. was home schooled. Who is authorized by statute to prosecute any person charged with abuse or neglect before the juvenile court. Deputy County Attorney Langston concurred (1) See Utah Code Ann. 62A 4a 101(16)(b) (1997) (protective services provided by the Division of Child and Family Services are in part to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-4142.htm">99-4142 -- JENSEN V. REEVES -- 02/09/2001<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E58B9523D0E9679C88256EAC00577514/$file/0235675.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Kevin Anderson was convicted in 1993 of first degree rape and sodomy under Oregon laws that prohibit having sexual intercourse with a person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-5463a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Judy Rabinovitz. Perkins was on the brief for amicus curiae The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Beasley was on the brief for amicus curiae Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children. With her on the briefs were David W. Established a system for expediting the removal of aliens who arrive at the border but are not eligible for admission. Or procedure ... is first implemented. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs brought suit in federal court after they were dismissed from their high school football team. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' dismissal was permissible under the rule governing student speech set forth in Tinker v. Dillon Spurlock (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-5009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was J. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals from district court judgments dismissing. Lake is typical. To furnish such information </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022001.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Filed suit seeking to have declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0113n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted in a month long jury trial that featured a charge of conspiracy involving the growing and harvesting of marijuana plants in the states of Indiana and Michigan over a lengthy period of time. Sitting by designation. Case No. 01 2395/2398/2664/02 1450 Marcus Robinson was sentenced to a term of 130 months and Dennis Miles was sentenced to a term of 121 months. The testimony presented by the government was broken into four separate phases. Her testimony was supported by James Steffen who described his many purchases of marijuana from co conspirator Ralph Kough. The farm was used in the summer of 1995 for the growing and harvesting of massive amounts of 2 Case No. 01 2395/2398/2664/02 1450 marijuana. Called the local Sheriff's office and reported that he noticed unattended horses had escaped from their pasture on the Argyle Road farm and were on the road. 900 plants that the record suggested was consistent with the marijuana stalks that were found in the corn the officers discovered still standing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0049p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant Floyd Bruce was charged in a four count indictment with three counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and one count of unauthorized use of an access device in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). All of these charges were based largely upon evidence found in a search of hotel rooms rented by Defendant at the time of his arrest. Defendant understood that he was pleading guilty to an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment up to 30 years. Defendant was listed Notably. The underlying transcript of this suppression hearing was not included in the joint appendix provided by the parties on appeal. We have obtained a copy of the transcript of this May 30. Have confirmed that it is consistent with the facts as set forth in the parties' briefs on appeal and in the district court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. 1 No. 03 3110 United States v. Bruce Page 3 as the renter of room 316 and Ritter was recorded as the renter of room 320. The hotel manager contacted the Blue Ash Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F163D64148C71DF882570D20003C2FB/$file/0255627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are withdrawn and replaced by the Amended Opinion filed concurrently with this order. Richard Moreno and his companion Joe Rodriguez were on their way to a meeting at St. Who was riding in the passenger seat. Deputy Banks entered their names into a computer inside the patrol car and asked the men whether they were on parole. Moreno admitted that he was. Moreno heard one of the deputies tell the other that Rodriguez was </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/088ADB1589395F3F8825716500567FE7/$file/0556040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeal the district court's orders1 which (a) abstained as to their claim that three sections of the California law relating to marriage are unconstitutional. 2 and (b) ruled adversely to them on their claims that two sections of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)3 are likewise unconstitutional. BACKGROUND It is agreed: Smelt and Hammer are both males who wish to obtain a California marriage license and to marry each other in that state. They were denied a license both times </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0389p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff Lisa Mills was arrested and had her home searched in Knox County. The police apparently concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case and the charge against her was later dropped. Plaintiff was searched for contraband at the Knox County Jail. Although the search was conducted by female jailers. Claiming that her constitutional rights were violated when (1) the police searched her residence and arrested her pursuant to a defective warrant obtained through a faulty affidavit and (2) a male jailer saw her bare chest during the search at the jail after her arrest. Before judgment was entered. Plaintiff moved to dismiss a number of the defendants.2 The motion was granted and these defendants were dismissed with prejudice. That motion was denied and plaintiff timely appealed. Despite the fact that he was dismissed below with prejudice as a result of plaintiff's own motion. Plaintiff also names several entities as parties to her appeal that were not named parties to the proceeding below: the City of Barbourville. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1944.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Neither are parties to the defamation case. </P> <P> Gill then amended the complaint to assert that TRPB acted as the Gulfstream defendants' agent in preparing this defamatory Report. Which was opposed by TRPB. Arguing that the names of the tipsters were protected from disclosure. The stated mission of TRPB is to </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1239.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If in the opinion of the magistrate the evidence shows that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it. We will first discuss the Supreme Court's ruling in Press Enterprise II. PRESS ENTERPRISE II Section 868 of the California Penal Code required preliminary hearings to be open to the public unless </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-1395.htm">00-1395 -- FARMER V. PERRILL -- 05/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Were also on the briefs) for Defendants Appellants. <p> John S. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).<a href= </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/983125P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Frank McCaster was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(B). The closet was shared by the other tenant of the duplex. After the drugs were found. The officers informed McCaster that he was under arrest and asked him to cooperate. He waived his Miranda rights and gave a statement that was recorded on audiotape. Although the crack cocaine found in the ceramic statue was for his personal consumption. McCaster was not taken into custody but was allowed to attend his son's out of town football game that The Honorable Bruce M. Curtilage originally referred to the land and outbuildings immediately adjacent to a castle that were in turn surrounded by a high stone wall. He was arrested. He contended that the search of the closet was not authorized by the search warrant and that his statement was the result of improper police coercion and was thus involuntary. The evidence was nonetheless admissible since the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0228p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are custodial parents who are. Or were. The ruling of the district court is affirmed. That defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Remand was necessary to determine whether the defendants had stated a cognizable due process or § 1983 claim. Because the heightened Veney standard employed by the district court was abrogated by Goad v. 2) there was no procedural due process violation. 3) defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Both are former directors of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ( </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972286P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that her constitutional rights were violated when Morgan raped her while he was on duty. She indicated that she did not have the necessary papers with her. Morgan called for a tow truck which was standard procedure in such a situation. Rogers was unable to locate the papers. She stopped when Morgan said she did not have to have sex with him. Rogers testified that she was in shock and afraid during this encounter and that she did not know what to do. That she was surprised a police officer would be acting in such a way. That she was intimidated by Morgan's gun and badge. The events took place during Morgan's duty shift when he was wearing his uniform. Rogers said she was afraid to show how upset she was at the time. He testified that she was upset and cried during the call. The court held there was insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether there was a policy or custom of failing to investigate or act on allegations of abuse by police officers and whether there was evidence that the chief handled prior incidents improperly or ignored complaints. </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/10circuit/nov95/93-1181.html">HAYES V. MARRIOTT<BR></A><BR> Hayes alleges that in January 1991 he was subjected to an unreasonable body cavity search that was videotaped by prison officials. He maintains that all inmates in the facility were searched in common areas in the presence of female corrections officers as well as </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/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1060a.html">DEPT AIR FORCE V. FLRA<BR></A><BR> </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0289p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He explained that he wanted to do so in order to have access to files the state would turn over only to his lawyer. There were other charges pending against him at the time and in each case Jones asked for access to police reports and other materials the state had turned over to his lawyer but refused to give to him. Jones wanted to spend more time reviewing the materials relevant to his case than his lawyer was willing to provide. The judge asked Jones whether he was dissatisfied with his lawyer's services. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1819.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Were in possession of firearms inside Pete & Mary's Bar. Because Officer Leedberg was involved in another case on August 14. The confidential informant told Officer Leedberg that Lewis and Starks were again in 3 possession of firearms in Pete & Mary's Bar. He stated that he had seen the firearms and the informant then described to Officer Leedberg how Lewis and Starks were dressed. The officers were in an unmarked police cruiser and were dressed in street clothes. 4 Officers Leedberg and Keating were rapidly approaching the D'Angelo's parking lot in their unmarked police car. Who was still conducting surveillance from the used car lot adjacent to the D'Angelo's parking lot. We note that the district court is entrusted with deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and we will not overrule the refusal to convene an evidentiary hearing unless the district court is shown to have abused its discretion. Lewis and Starks have made no such showing. Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress are required only when a defendant makes a sufficient showing that a warrantless search has occurred. </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/10circuit/aug95/93-4044.html">JANE L. V. BANGERTER<BR></A><BR> We are called upon to determine the legal vitality of several provisions of Utah's 1991 abortion law against the backdrop of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Recognizing that their legislation was a facial attack on prevailing Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. We are satisfied that any jurisdictional problems have been corrected and that appellate jurisdiction is present. Casey was argued April 22. Were unconstitutional. Section 302(3): Post 20 Week Abortion Ban The district court's first task after Casey was to determine the constitutionality of section 302 of the Act.3 The court held 3 Utah Code Ann. 76 7 302. The abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. (b) the pregnancy is the result of rape or rape of a child. That was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (c) the pregnancy is the result of incest. The incident was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (e). (4) The name of a victim reported pursuant to Subsection (b) or (c) is confidential and may not be revealed by law enforcement or any other party except upon approval of the victim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="137"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C85D8443BFD16515882572030056B28D/$file/0510653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paopao also claims that the District Court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charges because they were unconstitutional as applied to him. The robbers posed as police officers and were armed. PAOPAO 17355 Lum </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0312n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Grant was gathering the money. Jackson was taken into custody. Was apprehended as he attempted to hide in the bushes. Jackson and Grant were taken back to the bank. Jackson was formally placed under arrest. Was appointed to represent Jackson. Jackson was ordered detained. Butler filed a motion for a mental competency examination to determine whether Jackson was sane at the time of the offense. Jackson and co defendant Grant were indicted on March 3. A psychiatric evaluation was completed. Jackson was arraigned on August 10. The district court adopted the Forensic Report's finding that Jackson was competent to stand trial. Butler informed the court that Jackson did not want Butler representing him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/022839u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government is content with the status quo. We have jurisdiction over a final order denying access to court records or proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We will reverse the order of the District Court and release the 5K letter in its entirety. I. Inasmuch as there is nothing of precedential value in our decision here. We write mainly for the District Court and the parties who are familiar with both the facts and procedural history of this case. It is unnecessary to recount either in detail. It is sufficient background to relate that Chang pleaded guilty to five counts related to making illegal contributions to Senator Torricelli. Sentencing for Chang was scheduled for May 23. Chang's sentencing memorandum was date stamped by the Clerk of the District Court's Office indicating that it was </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0264p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-8585.man.html">CROSBY V. PAULK (9/10/1999, NO. 97-8585)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine if local law enforcement officers and a state revenue agent are entitled to qualified immunity for investigating underage drinking and after hours sales of alcohol in nightclubs. The Valdosta/Lowndes/Brooks Drug Task Force ( </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-8585.man.html">CROSBY V. PAULK (9/10/1999, NO. 97-8585)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This interlocutory appeal requires us to determine if local law enforcement officers and a state revenue agent are entitled to qualified immunity for investigating underage drinking and after hours sales of alcohol in nightclubs. The Valdosta/Lowndes/Brooks Drug Task Force ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence that the defendant filed before entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. It was later discovered that the 911 call was placed by 12 year old Diane McKnight. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The girl was later identified as Diane McKnight. McKnight told the officer that her mother and her mother's boyfriend were inside the apartment fighting. After announcing that he was a police officer. Again announced that he was a police officer. The officer asked Bennett where the other person was. Bennett told him that no one else was upstairs. Her voice was shaky and she appeared upset. He was carrying a black school bag. Officer Azzarano handcuffed Myers' hands behind his back as he was lying face down on the floor and proceeded to pat him down. Myers responded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3473.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree the ordinance is facially content neutral. If the Board's reasonable reliance were not in dispute. It is located just off an exit ramp on I 70. The total population of the unincorporated portions of Dickinson County is small. The store's inventory is almost entirely adult oriented. The only calls for service attributable to The Lion's Den were in connection with demonstrators who gathered to protest the store's opening. <hr> In response. The evidence shows it is unlikely any of the commissioners had those documents at that time. <hr> On July 16. Multiple drafts were prepared and considered by the Board before it settled on a final text. Especially vocal in his support of restricting sexually oriented businesses was Philip Cosby. Was insufficient to force The Lion's Den to move from its current location. Which is approximately 1150 feet from the nearest residence. Relevant provisions of the Second Ordinance are as follows: (1) Owners of stores devoting more than 35 percent of the inventory or floor space to adult materials must obtain a license from the County. </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=99-1797.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ferrer</U> were on brief. Viera Vargas</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-4047.htm">01-4047 -- TIPPETTS V. U.S. -- 10/02/2002<BR></A><BR> Tippetts was placed on administrative leave. He was not informed of the reason and he was never told during his leave period why he had been suspended. During the three and one half months he was on administrative leave. He was required to call in to work every day. No work was ever available for him. Also during the period he was on administrative leave. Tippetts alleges that Postal Service management personnel stated to his coworkers that he was psychotic. Tippetts' employment with the Postal Service was terminated. A written settlement agreement was entered whereby Mr. Tippetts' employment was reinstated and he was awarded some back pay. The back pay was not paid until July 1998. <p> Mr. His right to privacy was violated. Claiming the court was without jurisdiction by virtue of the CSRA and the FECA. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress</u> </center> <p> The Federal Employees' Compensation Act is a workers' compensation plan for federal government employees. 20 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 3. That order was not issued by the Judge from whose final orders the appeal is taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/053770P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brooklyn Center police received an anonymous tip that drugs were being sold from three identified rooms at a local Motel 6. Flesland and Reynolds were dispatched to the Motel 6. The officers were allowed entry into that room. This opinion is filed by the remaining members of the panel and the Honorable Michael J. Who was designated. Richmond stated that his name was Tyrone Johnson and gave a date of birth. Richmond soon told police that his real name was Courtney Richmond and admitted that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Officer Bruce informed Richmond that he believed Richmond likely was concealing drugs on his person and that Bruce was going to check his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug18/03-50520-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Carried in one hand a grocery bag which was weighed down by its contents and a box of sandwich baggies in his other hand. Thompson's property was not enclosed. As Stromboe and Phillips were walking back to the patrol car. Was unable to do so. Had already observed from her window that Phillips and Davis were handcuffed and that about four officers were at the scene. After the officers were unable to retrieve the evidence by lifting the roof of the shed. Because the shed was cluttered with items that completely blocked access to the corner where the grocery bag lay. Stromboe was then able to open the roof of the shed. After the evidence was recovered. Phillips was transported to the SAPD substation. Phillips was advised of his constitutional rights both upon arrival and when subsequently interviewed by a Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3624.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> John Doe was banned for life from all park property in the City of Lafayette. BACKGROUND No. 01 3624 John Doe is a convicted sex offender. His last conviction was in 1991. Doe's crimes were committed in schools. He claims that his urges are triggered by emotional vulnerability. His psychologist opines that he will likely have these urges for the rest of his life. Doe was driving home from work and began to have sexual thoughts about children. Because he was upset about the incident. Is far from clear. There is no evidence that he got out of his car or even stopped his car at the first park. The thoughts he had while he was there. Although all acknowledge that Doe was no longer serving a sentence or on probation.3 As a result of this conversation. Nor was Doe afforded an opportunity to appeal.4 The ban order is both geographically and temporally broad. The City of Lafayette's extensive park system 2 Doe's psychologist testified that his ability to go to the park and manage his impulses is a positive step in his treatment and helps integrate Doe into a more normal lifestyle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2000/98-2123.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (2/14/2000, NO. 98-2123)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this appeal is whether criminal defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room for which they neither paid nor registered. Was assigned to Room 616. He was accompanied by an unidentified male and a minor female later identified as JoAnn Grande. Allen Gonzalez checked into the hotel and was assigned to Room 624. He was also accompanied by an unidentified male who did not register with the hotel. As the key Urbina had was not working properly.</P> <P> Shortly after midnight on January 28. The guest complained that a ringing alarm clock in Room 616 was disturbing his sleep. Concluding several varieties of narcotics were in fact on the premises. Room 618 (its occupant was relocated to another room). O'Brien notified the officers that some of the people he had observed going in and out of Room 616 were <EM>en route</EM> to the sixth floor. They recovered approximately $1500 of United States currency similarly bundled and a plastic bag containing what were later identified as four broken tablets of flunitrazepam. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-5270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2000/98-2123.man.html">UNITED STATES V. COOPER (2/14/2000, NO. 98-2123)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this appeal is whether criminal defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room for which they neither paid nor registered. Was assigned to Room 616. He was accompanied by an unidentified male and a minor female later identified as JoAnn Grande. Allen Gonzalez checked into the hotel and was assigned to Room 624. He was also accompanied by an unidentified male who did not register with the hotel. As the key Urbina had was not working properly.</P> <P> Shortly after midnight on January 28. The guest complained that a ringing alarm clock in Room 616 was disturbing his sleep. Concluding several varieties of narcotics were in fact on the premises. Room 618 (its occupant was relocated to another room). O'Brien notified the officers that some of the people he had observed going in and out of Room 616 were <EM>en route</EM> to the sixth floor. They recovered approximately $1500 of United States currency similarly bundled and a plastic bag containing what were later identified as four broken tablets of flunitrazepam. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/021437.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN Estate of Robert Cecil Smith. We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's order granting summary judgment and will affirm its discovery orders without prejudice to the Smiths seeking to reopen discovery on the remand we are ordering. Several members of the state police were familiar with Smith. The Smiths allege that through these contacts the state police came to know that Smith was in fragile physical and mental health. Was required to be free from stressful situations and to take medication. That certain troopers were aware that Smith suffered from PTSD and experienced flashbacks. Troopers James Marasco and Nicholas Scianna of Troop L went to Smith's residence at approximately 10:30 p.m.1 Marasco responded to Shafer's complaint even though Smith's residence was outside his assigned geographic patrol area. The troopers did not have an arrest warrant or a search warrant. Rodriguez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8BA4DFA030BD806388256E5A00707CB8/$file/9936205.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graber had given this information to an angry group of Guy's family and friends at a time they knew that Guy was near death. The plaintiffs' contention is that the release of the information was done with deliberate indifference to the danger to them and that this indifference continued in the refusal of the defendants to afford them protection from the danger. Holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce evi12861 dence that would create a triable issue of material fact showing that the danger was known or obvious to the defendants. The following was established: On December 29. Was engaged in bizarre behavior. He was still yelling and struggling. The paramedics were called. Guy was revived and transferred to Harborview Medical Center. Guy's family was notified and came to the hospital the next morning. Guy was comatose and later died. Graber entered the conference room where 15 to 20 family members and friends of Guy were assembled. Boehme told several of the plaintiffs that the incident reports had been released so their names were known. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032654p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Sitting by designation. * FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Agnew was charged in an indictment with distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Dauphin County Sheriff's Deputy Gary Duncan testified that he was assigned to the Fugitive Task Force charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-3027a.html">U.S. V. RUSSELL EUGENE WESTON, JR<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516299.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Stanley Street was indicted for robbing three Atlanta area banks. He was sentenced to 771 months in prison. A customer was waiting at the drivethrough window of an Atlanta area Wachovia bank branch when the teller motioned to her that the bank was being robbed. Which the agents believed were related to this one. He told the officers his name and stated that he was an Atlanta police officer. Agent Holmes identified himself as an FBI agent and told Street that he wanted to discuss the 3 Corolla and the fact that it may have been involved in a bank robbery earlier that day. The officers were in plain clothes with their weapons holstered. They explicitly informed Street that he was not under arrest. Street's parents watched television in another room and were not bothered by the agents. When he was awakened by a lawn man. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031226p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are a class of mentally retarded adults in need of medical services from an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-1469.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Svoboda violated his First Amendment rights by instituting sexual harassment claims against him following comments Shockley made to colleagues in the political science department at Western Illinois University (WIU) that Svoboda was having an affair with another professor. The district court determined that Shockley's comments were best characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-5149.htm">02-5149 -- U.S. V. FLOWERS -- 07/22/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/01-3027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: Under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause there is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB29C2EAC4A20B6688256AC400045217/$file/9936205.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graber had given this information to an angry group of Guy's family and friends at a time they knew that Guy was near death. The plaintiffs' contention is that the release of the information was done with deliberate indifference to the danger to them and that this indifference continued in the refusal of the defendants to afford them protection from the danger. Holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce evi12861 dence that would create a triable issue of material fact showing that the danger was known or obvious to the defendants. The following was established: On December 29. Was engaged in bizarre behavior. He was still yelling and struggling. The paramedics were called. Guy was revived and transferred to Harborview Medical Center. Guy's family was notified and came to the hospital the next morning. Guy was comatose and later died. Graber entered the conference room where 15 to 20 family members and friends of Guy were assembled. Boehme told several of the plaintiffs that the incident reports had been released so their names were known. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/041535P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ehrmann telephoned Blaylock and told him he was planning to vacation in Arizona and would try to stop in Dallas on his return trip to Minneapolis. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 Circuit parties are a series of gay dance parties held around the world. 2 few days. I will bring them with me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032654p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Sitting by designation. * FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Agnew was charged in an indictment with distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Dauphin County Sheriff's Deputy Gary Duncan testified that he was assigned to the Fugitive Task Force charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-3122.htm">98-3122 -- U.S. V. GORDON -- 02/23/1999<BR></A><BR> Gordon and Tiffany Myers were subsequently charged in a three count indictment with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and cocaine. Were engaged in drug activity in the Motel 6 on West Kellogg and had drawn a gun on the caller from a black Saturn. Officers Arnaldo Martinez and Bret Benjamin were dispatched in response to the tip. <p> Officers Martinez and Benjamin arrived at the Motel 6 and located a black Saturn in the motel parking lot. The vehicle was registered to Tiffany Myers. Officer Martinez asked the motel clerk to call room 209 to determine if anyone was present. Believing Espinoza was in the room. As the two officers were approaching room 209. After a pat down search revealed that Espinoza was unarmed. Defendant's hands were in his pocket. Concerned that she was attempting to destroy evidence or reaching for a weapon. A cellular phone and various documents. <p> After Defendant was taken to the police station. He said he was only using it so he could get back into the room quickly after he went to the parking lot to talk with someone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032654p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the conviction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Agnew was charged in an indictment with distribution of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Dauphin County Sheriff's Deputy Gary Duncan testified that he was assigned to the Fugitive Task Force charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Land owned by the McKenzies was platted into a subdivision of fourteen one acre lots along both sides of a public roadway land to named the Michealann north was Drive. At the and north the end of the was subdivision. The McKenzies retained a rectangular shaped parcel measuring ten feet by fifty feet as a privacy buffer. annexed the subdivision in 1977. lots in the subdivision was offered owned for Administration by the As Federal former The City Aviation the Eight years later. Because there was no public In 1989. Eight other planned homes were not started because the City withheld approval of the redivision and building permits pending the McKenzies' surrender of the privacy buffer. the City continued to deny the McKenzies' zoning requests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB285A20884E5ABA88256A84007C899A/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 such is not the case in the judicial arena </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3405.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Something is rotten in the Village of Alsip. The Alsip Chief of Police is Kenneth Wood. David Snooks is the department's Field Operations Commander. At the time this suit was filed. They attempted to remove him from his post on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The events overlap in time and we will describe them separately for clarity. We credit McGreal's version of the facts because he is the party opposing judgment. He was on routine patrol late one night in June 1995 when he noticed a number of cars in the parking lot of the Alsip Elk's Club in apparent violation of the local closing time ordinance. The machines themselves are not illegal but using them to gamble is No. 02 3405 3 prohibited. The video poker machines were owned by a company called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF97BA225A82346988256E5A00707BDD/$file/9935930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 such is not the case in the judicial arena </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5354a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043737np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Johnson argues that the DNA Act violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the taking of a blood sample from prisoners convicted of violent offenses for the purpose of storing DNA in a database for use by law enforcement and other government officials is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. He seeks declaratory relief and the expungement of a DNA sample that was forcibly taken sometime prior to April 9. We will affirm. I. Johnson is an inmate at SCI Huntingdon. Johnson was informed that under Pennsylvania's DNA Act and Department of Corrections (DOC) Policy. He was not entitled to release unless he provided a blood sample and would not receive institutional support for his parole. Other types of outside clearance are also barred until a sample is given. His outside supervised clearance was revoked. A sample was forcibly extracted.2 1st Sp. We are unaware of whether outside clearance was reinstated after the forcible extraction. 2 2 1 Johnson filed an inmate grievance alleging retaliation by Ogershok for his refusal to give a DNA sample. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-7221a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Clifton S. Weyrich's complaint asserts that he was defamed by an article. The article is flowered with anecdotes that reveal Weyrich to be both emotionally volatile and short tempered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2187.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cos and accepting the district court's factual findings because they are not clearly erroneous. Cos's friend lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the search and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Cos by telephone but was unsuccessful. That they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A59BE2A88B564E3C88256A80007C7F68/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An article from this issue entitled </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/9A8A5C6DF4191E6C88256E5A00707BD3/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An article from this issue entitled </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> We determine whether the owner and chief executive officer of a home healthcare provider properly was accorded a two level enhancement in her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust by submitting falsified Medicare claims to a fiscal intermediary. Because the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust was improper. Was the owner. Health Care Financing Administration.<A HREF= </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The facts are set out in the district court's opinion. Presented in a manner that recognizes the statutory edge 1Section 10(l) provides in relevant part: Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice [as defined in other sections of the NLRA]. The officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true and that a complaint should issue. The sequelae were predictable: overcrowded parking lots. The record reveals that on at least two of the occasions store managers complained to a Union official who was on the premises. Because the Union's actual labor dispute was with the primary employer. The Union asseverated that these shop ins were efforts to publicize its grievance with Busch. Were thus beyond the statute's proscriptive reach. Asserting that she had reasonable cause to believe that the associational shopping amounted to an illegal secondary boycott because its real purpose was to force the retailers to cease purchasing beverages from Busch. </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/7EF5B069AA425BC38825730D00579E8C/$file/0515170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-9361.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GARRISON (1/22/1998, NO. 95-9361)<BR></A><BR> We determine whether the owner and chief executive officer of a home healthcare provider properly was accorded a two level enhancement in her sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for abusing a position of public trust by submitting falsified Medicare claims to a fiscal intermediary. Because the two level enhancement for abuse of a position of public trust was improper. Was the owner. Health Care Financing Administration.<A HREF= </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/CB77EE6802F2B37F8825733700587A8B/$file/0550236opiniononly.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Oakland facility is one of four FedEx regional sorting facilities in the United States. Affixed to each package was an international air waybill completed and signed by Seljan. Inside were return address labels for Seljan's post office box and two envelopes. The letter contained sexually suggestive language and appeared to be addressed to an eight year old girl.3 1 The Customs Service was reorganized as the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in 2003. No. 108 32 (2003). 2 Customs inspectors have authority under 31 U.S.C. § 5317(b) to inspect packages at the border for violations of 31 U.S.C. § 5316. The two letters were more sexually explicit than the November 2002 letter. While the other letter was addressed to another girl's mother. You do have a very nice handwritting. To day we are sending a large box of many things for the whole family. In that box is some candy and a special [indiscernible] of Chocalate for you and it has your name on the box. Agent Vincik learned that Seljan had spoken of traveling to the Philippines to </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034418p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lusingo argues that the BIA's ruling denying his asylum claim is </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0104p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Confers a private right on individuals enforceable under § 1983 and (2) the State's single source contract violates the freedom of choice provision because incontinence products are not </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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-6245.wpd.html">DAVIS V. GRACEY<BR></A><BR> Is spelled incorrectly. A warrant was obtained to search his business premises. Davis was selling obscene CD ROMs from his business premises. The officer did not mention the possibility that a bulletin board was being operated on the premises. Davis were obscene. Attached to it were CD ROM drives housing sixteen CD ROM discs. Who was reputed to be more knowledgeable about computers than they were. The seizure of this computer equipment is the subject of the federal proceedings in this case. Davis was convicted of several counts of possessing and distributing obscenity. His conviction was upheld on appeal. Law enforcement officials have apparently disclaimed any interest in the materials in electronic storage. The crux of the complaint is that the seizure of the equipment was illegal because the warrant was not sufficiently particular and because the seized computer system contained e mail intended for private subscribers to the bulletin board. Plaintiffs contend these (1) Gayla Davis was. TSI Telecommunications is a corporation owned by Anthony and Gayla Davis. </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1417.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Szerlag</SPAN> was on brief. We decline the invitation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-3070a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kenneth L. I West was a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from New Jersey to North Carolina on February 2. West was seated in the last row of the bus. Detective James McNamara who was wearing street clothes and did not display a weapon approached West. West opened it and began moving items around so that the detective could see what was inside. That his consent was voluntary. That evidence regarding the gun was therefore admissible at trial. The lawyers were given a list of the occupations that potential jurors had reported on their juror questionnaires. The court instructed the panel members to raise their hands if the answer was </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-7221a.html">PAUL WEYRICH V. THE NEW REPUBLIC, INC.<BR></A><BR> With </p> <p>him on the brief were Clifton S. Weyrich's complaint asserts that he was defamed </p> <p>by an article. The article is flowered </p> <p>with anecdotes that reveal Weyrich to be both emotionally </p> <p>volatile and short tempered. Is used in the article </p> <p>as a popular. The </p> <p>author's musings on these scores are protected political com </p> <p>mentary. It is clear that his comments are </p> <p>meant only to deride Weyrich's political foibles and. </p> <p>assertions of mental derangement.</p> <p>There are other segments of the article. </p> <p>the anecdotes reported in the article are reasonably capable </p> <p>of defamatory meaning and arguably place Weyrich in a false </p> <p>light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. </p> <p>Thus. Because we find that some of the article's contested </p> <p>statements are both verifiable and reasonably capable of </p> <p>defamatory meaning. At least a portion of the complaint is </p> <p>sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-5249a.html">STIGILE ARTHUR W. V. CLINTON, WILLIAM J.<BR></A><BR> </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/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1010p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Government asserted that others were exempt from disclosure under various FOIA exemptions. Manna appeals the district court's decision with respect to those documents the Government claimed were exempted under sections 7(A). The records provided were mainly pre trial and trial transcripts. With respect to Exemption 7(A) (interference with law enforcement proceedings) the district court concluded that the Government had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31016.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No WCI official had indicated to him that the hairstyle was improper. Toppins was repeatedly given disciplinary citations for refusing to either remove his hair from the dreadlocks or cut off his dreadlocks. Some of these citations were appealed. Some were not. On a single occasion Toppins was not permitted to go to a scheduled doctor's appointment because of his refusal to remove his dreadlocks. 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. 2 was not permitted to appear in court. After Toppins was permitted to file an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)1 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Claims reviewed under this standard are III.A.(1) and III.B.(7). The dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A2 is reviewed de novo. Claims III.B.(1) (4) are reviewed under this standard. Also relevant for purposes of this appeal is that de novo review is given to claims dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0974p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a negligence suit growing out of a transfusion of contaminated blood collected by the Red Cross through its volunteer donor program. We hold that the Red Cross is not clothed with governmental immunity and therefore the plaintiff's request for a jury trial should have been granted. Was infected with HIV as a result of a blood transfusion she received at Brandywine Hospital on February 5. Her condition has deteriorated to the point that it is inevitable she will soon develop full blown AIDS. 1985 by a homosexual male who was HIV+. Which can determine whether a blood sample is contaminated by HIV. That test did not receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration until March 1985 and was not available at the time of Marcella's transfusion. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was docketed in the district court as a jury trial. Shortly before the case was scheduled for trial. The Red Cross filed a motion </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-7203a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Christopher Landau. Jr. were on the brief of amici curiae Dow Jones & Company. With him on the brief was Louis K. The issue on appeal is whether undisputed facts prove that Representative James A. At the time of the conversation Gingrich was the subject of an investigation by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Representative Boehner was chairman of the 3 House Republican Conference. Representative Boehner was driving through Florida when he joined the conference call. The tape was forwarded to Thurman's Washington office. Representative McDermott was the ranking Democrat on the Ethics Committee. The letter stated: Enclosed in the envelope you will find a tape of a conversation heard December 21. The call was a conference call heard over a scanner. We felt the information included were of importance to the committee. We were advised by her to turn the tape directly over to you. We also understand that we will be granted immunity. We pray that committee will consider our sincerity in placing it in your hands. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/033835p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731. We will reverse the district court's order. Both agents were dressed in plain clothes but wore visible badges. Identifying himself and Agent Aster and stating that their purpose was to investigate drug trafficking. He advised the passengers that their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1608.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Seder & Chandler was on brief for appellants. Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellees Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois. Colinvaux and Zelle & Larson were on brief for appellee American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company. Are obligated to defend and indemnify Dryden in connection with a lawsuit brought against Dryden by Raymond King. After the pleadings were closed. A liability insurance carrier must defend an action against its insured if the allegations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="132"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0DB21CF9CC371A882572B3007EB140/$file/0510322.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether a remote search of computer files on a hard drive by a network administrator was justified under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMwMTgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3018-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When a defendant's ex mother in law is excluded from a limited portion of a criminal trial that is attended by other members of the defendant's family. We conclude that the trial court's refusal to admit the ex mother in law was so trivial as not to constitute a constitutional violation. He contends that his right to a public trial was violated when the state trial court effected a limited courtroom closure during the testimony of a confidential informant. The District Court denied the habeas petition on the ground that any error resulting from the trial court's exclusion of Carson's ex mother in law was harmless. We affirm because we find that the error was not substantial enough to undermine the values furthered by the Sixth Amendment's public trial guarantee. That it was known in the courtroom and Lefrak City that Sanchez would be testifying against Carson and Williams. To determine whether a closure was necessary to protect Sanchez and his family's safety. In which she was told that Sanchez would die if he testified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-11361.man.html">THOMAS V. ROBERTS (8/15/2001, NO. 00-11361)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that they were subject to unconstitutional strip searches. The district court found that the strip searches<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-5185.wpd.html">LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO. V. EAST CENTRAL OKLA. ELECTRIC COOP.<BR></A><BR> Based on a district court's determination that Creek County Well Service was responsible for 75 % of a wrongful death. I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts in the part of this matter now before us are undisputed. Three employees of Creek County Well Service were injured. When the oil well servicing rig which they were using came into contact with high voltage electrical lines that East Central owned and operated. Two actions were brought against East Central in state district court in Oklahoma: One of the injured Creek County Well Service employees brought a personal injury action. Although the state court judge refused to rule on this motion until after the trial in the state actions was completed. After the family of the Creek County Well Service employee who was killed by the power line incident secured a judgment for over $2. A jury trial was held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of (1) Although the state judge's actions seem questionable. They are not before us. The jury found that Creek County Well Service was 75 % negligent in causing the injuries to its employees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0056n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The stated purpose of the policy was to address concerns over a perceived conflict between private interests and public duties of officers and employees of the LFUCG and to promote </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/01-7151.htm">01-7151 -- U.S. V. HATFIELD -- 06/25/2003<BR></A><BR> He was sentenced by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma to imprisonment for thirty six months. Arguing that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-6354.htm">96-6354 -- SWANSON V. GUTHRIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I-L -- 01/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Were on the briefs). The purpose behind the home schooling is religious </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2173.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was driving his gold Toyota pickup in Hobbs. Marshall was stopped at an intersection with his left turn signal blinking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1899p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether a board of education exceeded its authority by implementing a consensual program to distribute condoms in public schools in order to prevent disease. We will affirm. HIV infection are epidemic among school age youth . . . . Have an obligation to promote a healthy lifestyle for all adolescents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the statute is a content based restriction which chills speech that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-3090.htm">01-3090 -- GRAY V. BRUCE -- 12/12/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Kevin and Marsha Gray. Who are husband and wife and who appear pro se and in forma pauperis. Relevant facts</strong></center> <p> The consolidated complaints are based on Mrs. Who is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility. Kansas Department of Corrections internal management rules require prospective contact visitors at certain facilities to submit to a skin swab that is then tested for the presence of illegal drugs by means of an ion spectrometer.<a href= </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/962164A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which it was claimed that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of class members were violated when they were subjected to warrantless stops and physical searches at a police checkpoint set up to prevent the suspected introduction of weapons into a charity motorcycle rally in Spartanburg. The class members sought a declaration of constitutional violations in both the stops and searches to which they were subjected. Bain was acting as the City's policy maker so as to subject it to liability for any constitutional violation found. To whom the issues were submitted for decision when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. (4) neither were they entitled under Fourth Circuit precedent to any award of nominal damages. Challenging the district court's ruling that the checkpoint stops and videotaping did not violate their constitutional rights and the court's ruling that they were entitled to no actual or nominal damage award for the unconstitutional searches declared by the court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53C5FD5B0F9D60E0882570120001783C/$file/0330471.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: Darrell Quaempts' trailer home was so small that he could open the front door while lying in his bed. Because the threshold of the home is a public place. Quaempts was not standing in the doorway of his home. He was in his bed. Are not 5874 UNITED STATES v. First told Quaempts that he was being placed under arrest for sexual assault. Was told it was Teresa Compo. Was placed in handcuffs and taken to jail. At issue here is the admissibility of Quaempts' statement. Made after his warrantless arrest while he was inside the trailer home. The question is whether by knowingly opening the door to the police knock. QUAEMPTS 5875 express right to be free from warrantless arrests inside one's home was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court a quarter century ago in Payton v. The police broke down an apartment door when there was no response to their knock. The Court held that the arrests were an illegal invasion of a zone of privacy. The Court in Santana established that the open doorway of a private residence is not a private place but a public one. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The theory of the action is that the Kentucky statutes requiring a natural father to 1 child support for his son born out pay of wedlock. These state paternity and child support actions are encouraged and supported by the original Child Support Enforcement Act. The Kentucky courts have ordered plaintiff to pay $851 per month in child support. The essential holding of District Judge Hood was stated as follows: Plaintiff has identified no action taken by a state actor that impacted in any way his choice to father a child. He limits his appeal to a claim for injunctive relief based on a declaration that Kentucky paternity and child support laws are invalid. The parties have filed extensive briefs but waived oral argument. His basic claim is that the mother of the child </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joel Kurtzberg. Reid Alan Cox was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of appellants. Jr. were on the brief for amici curiae Magazine Publishers of America. Is protected by a reporter's privilege arising from the First Amendment. We agree with the District Court that there is no First Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. It is not absolute. We further conclude that other assignments of error raised by appellants are without merit. In which he claimed to have been sent to Niger in 2002 by the Central Intelligence Agency ( </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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7021a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/022694P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gregory Hill and Pamela Kuenstler were each convicted of two charges related to manufacturing methamphetamine in an amount of fifty grams or more: one count of conspiracy to manufacture a mixture and substance of methamphetamine and another charging attempt to manufacture the same. Hill was also convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. I. In May 2001 authorities uncovered a methamphetamine lab in the attic of a house in which Hill and Kuenstler were staying. Hill and Kuenstler were tied to manufacturing efforts at the lab by the testimony of Brenda Brown. Brown was attempting to learn how to produce methamphetamine. Shortly before the lab was discovered. Elsewhere in the truck were a hypodermic needle. This count was based on the evidence found in his truck. The defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the attic because it was being used solely for commercial purposes. Defendants objected and argued that the indictment and the statute required proof that the object of the conspiracy or attempt was to produce fifty or more grams of methamphetamine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-11361.man.html">THOMAS V. ROBERTS (8/15/2001, NO. 00-11361)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that they were subject to unconstitutional strip searches. The district court found that the strip searches<A HREF= </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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3437.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These criteria are contained in a policy statement called the Internal Management Policies and Procedures (IMPP). Special enforcement officers are the only personnel authorized to conduct a more extensive search of offenders' person or property. </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0023p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to money damages. His complaint should have been dismissed in toto. Plaintiff's initial complaint was filed on November 26. The complaint was amended the following January. Which is the claim at the heart of this appeal. Or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary. By what statutory or other authority such number is solicited. What uses will be made of it. Are subject to the Privacy Act. The language of § 7(b) suggesting that state and local agencies fall within its ambit is at odds with another crucial definition of the Privacy Act. They are not before us on appeal. 1 No. 03 1884 Schmitt v. The district court looked to these statutory definitions and held that </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956243.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. I. BACKGROUND Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom. Jamerson volunteered that it was hidden behind a file cabinet. Jenkins and McKenzie both contend that Herring then escorted them to the restroom a second time where they were again asked to remove their clothes in an effort to locate the $7.00. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/01-13027.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MIRAVALLES (1/29/2002, NO. 01-13027)<BR></A><BR> He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of counterfeit cigar labels obtained because law enforcement officers were present in the common areas of his apartment building. Multi unit apartment building have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building. At least where the lock on the door of the building is not functioning and anyone may enter. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs appellants ( </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/05/022826P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The officers explained why they were called to the hotel. Including the fact that the hotel was not conveniently located relative to the airport. When the officers were arresting Salazar. He spontaneously stated that Kelly and Kelly's wife had access to the luggage and that they could have placed the cocaine in the luggage. After Kelly was taken to the station. Marshall because he did not believe that the evidence was sufficient to charge them with conspiracy. These were the only items found in and seized from room 214. The grand jury subsequently indicted Kelly and a Minnesota arrest warrant was issued. Where he lived and where he was on probation for earlier offenses. Kelly was carrying over $3. The same DEA agent who spoke with Kelly at the December 3 meeting was involved in transporting Kelly after the arrest in Nevada. The agent believed that Kelly may have invoked his right to counsel when he terminated the December 3 meeting. The agent told Kelly that Kelly would have to reinitiate any conversation in order to speak to the agent. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/01-13027.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. MIRAVALLES (1/29/2002, NO. 01-13027)<BR></A><BR> He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of counterfeit cigar labels obtained because law enforcement officers were present in the common areas of his apartment building. Multi unit apartment building have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building. At least where the lock on the door of the building is not functioning and anyone may enter. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956243.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. I. BACKGROUND Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom. 4 Jamerson volunteered that it was hidden behind a file cabinet. Jenkins and McKenzie both contend that Herring then escorted them to the restroom a second time where they were again asked to remove their clothes in an effort to locate the $7.00. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/99-1373.htm">99-1373 -- HOLLAND V. HARRINGTON -- 10/19/2001<BR></A><BR> Throwing them to the ground where they were kicked and beaten. Together with defendant Davis.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113027.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of counterfeit cigar labels obtained because law enforcement officers were present in the common areas of his apartment building. Multi unit apartment building have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building. At least where the lock on the door of the building is not functioning and anyone may enter. That cigars with counterfeit labels 1 were located in his apartment. They did not have sufficient probable cause to obtain a search In the briefs and in testimony. The latter term is inaccurate. Because there was nothing counterfeit about the cigars themselves. They were real cigars. Only the labels were counterfeit. Which is the defining element of the crime of trafficking in cigars bearing counterfeit marks. 2 1 warrant. They did not notify the property manager before entering and did not have to in order to gain entry. Because the door was unlocked. The door was on occasion unlocked when the electronic system was not working.2 The day the officers entered the building was such an occasion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5156a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Todd A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Because we conclude that the District Court correctly held that the Act is neither facially unconstitutional nor unconstitutional as applied to Johnson. Johnson was taken to a hospital because he was found sitting in a puddle eating dirt. He was convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on two counts of unarmed robbery in violation of D.C. While Johnson was on probation. The CSOSA agents did not have a warrant and did not have individualized suspicion that Johnson had committed a crime (other than the two counts of unarmed robbery for which he had been convicted and placed on probation). The agents claimed that Johnson was obligated under the Act to submit his DNA for inclusion in the CODIS database. 3 The Act provides that CSOSA officials </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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-7091.wpd.html">HOLLINGSWORTH V. HILL<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND The following facts are not in dispute. While her husband was gone. Received a copy of the Order he was to serve on Patricia Hollingsworth. Was frequently required to serve protective orders and summonses but was uncertain what this Order required him to do. The fifth item in the Order stated: </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F41FEA7784DE9948825713400038F2A/$file/0410226.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The initial screening was </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992363P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Andrew Gore is employed as a mechanic by Trans World Airlines (TWA) at its Maintenance and Engineering Center. He is a member of the International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers. AFL CIO and the terms of his employment are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Gore was working at the Overhaul Base. While he and coworker Howard Cowher were on a break. Who is the Manager of the Facilities Maintenance Department and Clossick's immediate supervisor. Who is TWA's Employee Relations Manager. Nass held a supervisors' meeting with Parker and Kenneth Gabriel and told them to warn their employees that Gore was a dangerous man. Gore's identification badge photograph was enlarged and posted in various places at the Overhaul Base to enable TWA employees to recognize Gore. Firearms are prohibited from the premises and that the company reserves the right to make inspections of employee lockers. Other items of personal property located on the premises when there is reason to believe they may contain prohibited items. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2