Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
The petition is therefore denied. The stay of the issuance of the mandate is vacated. No liberties are safe if courts can so easily erase them. No lover of liberty can be confident that an important right will never become so disfavored in popular or elite opinion as to be vulnerable to being discarded like the Second Amendment. KING 4167 I have spelled out in great detail why our court's view of the Second Amendment is indefensible. I will not restate them here. Our court takes what to me is a position verging on droll legal humor. That the right is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America. I Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LOCKYER The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The right to keep and bear arms is in no way absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions such as those embedded in the statute the California legislature enacted. This case should have been reheard en banc. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held. We can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution. The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights. They have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
03-4119 -- U.S. V. PARKER -- 03/24/2004
Circuit Judge.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
|
|
FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO
With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:
|
|
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-8.gif" ALT="824"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/012955.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Appellants1 raise three issues on appeal: 1) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity for the ETS claims. 2) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 1. The appellants are Stanley Taylor (Commissioner of the Department of Correction). All ranks are those held by appellants at the time of filing of the complaint. 2 retaliation and excessive force claims. 3) whether appellants in supervisory positions are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims because they lacked notice of the underlying events. We will affirm the District Court's denial of summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND2 Appellee Roger Atkinson is a blind. Diabetic prisoner who was housed at Delaware's Multi Purpose Criminal Justice Facility (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitions have been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other judges* of the court in regular active service. Less than a majority of whom have voted in favor of rehearing en banc. The petitions have been returned to the panel for decision. Upon consideration of the petitions and the response the panel concludes that the issues raised therein were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Each of the requests for rehearing is therefore denied. Copies of that decision and the revised concurrence are attached hereto. * Judge Daughtrey recused herself from participation in this ruling. 1 No. 04 5887 United States v. Ignores the fact that those decisions have been severely undermined and limited by other Eighth Circuit decisions. The panel's decision is incorrect and it undermines both the purposes of the exclusionary rule and the good faith exception. The police had information that Leon was heavily involved in drug importation into the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21927B11E3B07C88825717F0076B726/$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-8.gif" ALT="804"></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-8.gif" ALT="800"></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-7.gif" ALT="798"></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-7.gif" ALT="796"></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-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-8397.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms received information that Donald Wright was looking for someone to reassemble a .50 caliber machinegun. Two undercover local law enforcement agents were introduced to Wright as individuals capable of reassembling this gun. Once it was reassembled. Assorted documents and videotapes describing threats to United States sovereignty posed by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-8397.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. We must decide whether this amendment grants constitutional protection to an individual whose possession or use of machineguns and pipe bombs is not reasonably related to an organized state militia. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms received information that Donald Wright was looking for someone to reassemble a .50 caliber machinegun. Two undercover local law enforcement agents were introduced to Wright as individuals capable of reassembling this gun. Once it was reassembled. Assorted documents and videotapes describing threats to United States sovereignty posed by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033755p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is a securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf of shareholders of the Chubb Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0756n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff challenges the district court finding that Plaintiff was not entitled to a reduction in rent under the terms of a Second Amendment to the parties' original lease. The minimum rent was provided for in Section 4.03 of the lease. Is defined as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></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-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50˘. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED3D8E64B695AF1D88256AF7007FBE7A/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAF0DF04C873FDE88256E5A00707D36/$file/9955691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Leandro Andrade was convicted in the Superior Court of California of two counts of petty theft for shoplifting a total of nine videotapes from two K Mart stores. Because Andrade had been convicted of several prior offenses all non violent his petty thefts were first enhanced to felonies under California Penal Code § 666. Four justices of the United States Supreme Court have agreed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL. There were originally twenty two plaintiffs and twelve separate incidents at issue. Holding that this conduct raised an issue of fact as to whether the stop was based on race. Also whether the pat down search conducted by Officer Childs was reasonable under the circumstances. Is a suburb adjacent to Detroit. The 2000 census figures indicate that Eastpointe is 92.1 percent white and 4.7 percent African American. Detroit was found to be 12.3 percent white and 81.6 percent African American. Made famous by the popular movie 8 Mile divides the two cities and is commonly known as a racial dividing line. The plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to racial discrimination when they crossed Eight Mile Road into Eastpointe. Against the backdrop of each individual Fourteenth Amendment claim is reference to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1755p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY CSB is a New Jersey chartered. It has been selling CollegeSure(R) CDs which are deposit contracts designed to provide sufficient funds to cover future costs of college education. We deal only with the second action and thus our further references are to that case. Was unconstitutional. Because the abrogation was not a proper exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. It also pleaded a common law tort of unfair competition but we will not discuss that claim further as the district court dismissed it. Was an unconstitutional attempt to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court found that the constructive waiver doctrine did not apply because Florida Prepaid was engaging in a core government function. CSB appealed from the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim to this court.2 We will affirm the district court's holding that the TRCA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment powers as applied to the present case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611826.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></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-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/017500.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These convictions arose from Goines' possession of a firearm while he was selling and using illegal drugs. These terms were the product of separate analyses under the sentencing guidelines because § 924(c) requires a consecutive sentence. As is relevant here. Amendment 599 modified Note 2 to include the following language: If a sentence under this guideline is imposed in conjunction with a sentence for an underlying offense. Including any such enhancement that would apply based on conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). . . . If the explosive or weapon that was possessed . . . in the course of the underlying offense also results in a conviction that would subject the defendant to an enhancement under . . . §2K2.1(b)(5) (pertaining to possession of any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense). The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Commission sought
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
|
|
ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC
|
|
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
Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.A. was on brief for plaintiffs.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)
Inc. (
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)
Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
|
|
98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000
Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
|
|
ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Buchanan were on brief. This is a case of first impression for this court as to the standards for awarding attorneys' fees against the United States for its initiation of criminal proceedings. The district court awarded fees on the grounds that the government's prosecution was
|
|
FESTO CORPORATION V. SHOKETSU
Argued for plaintiff appellee. With him on the brief were Glenn T. Argued for defendants appellants. With him on the brief were Charles L. Pous. Of counsel on the brief was Ja
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. The officers have appealed that ruling. Is nevertheless of significant importance. Because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable. The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. As they are the nonmovants in this action. Defendants Nelson Moxley and Bobby Ray Perdue are and were at all times relevant to this opinion employed by High Point as animal control officers. Moxley and Perdue were charged with enforcing the various High Point ordinances governing dogs. The ordinance defines
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. For the legal analysis supporting its decision that the amendment was unconstitutional on Article I. The Missouri Amendment orders members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their authority to amend the United States Constitution Similar initiatives were on the ballot in thirteen other states in November 1996. Missouri have been invalidated in federal and state courts on various state and federal constitutional grounds. Yet another similar initiative was passed in California in June 1998. (2) failure to second it if a second is lacking. (8) failure to ensure that all votes on term limits are recorded and available to the public. It orders that those who do not take the pledge have the label
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead.
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The opinion and dissent are amended as follows: 1. Justice Scalia further held that
|
|
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. 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
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
|
|
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
A majority nonetheless held that the Coal Remining regulations were invalid on grounds not raised by Petitioners or addressed by the EPA. Regulatory Landscape The United States is divided into three major coal producing regions. There have been dramatic changes in the domestic production of coal due to environmental concerns and market demands. The EPA estimates that there are currently over 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands in the United States. Which have produced over 9. There are two principal pieces of federal legislation governing water pollution caused by coal mines. Was enacted on August 3. The SMCRA is administered by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read
|
|
USA V. EDMOND
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was violating provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the
|
|
TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As to Petitioner Max Alexander Soffar's claims that (1) he did not have effective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase proceedings. (2) his right to counsel was violated by police interrogation regarding an extraneous offense after he had been charged with capital murder and had requested and received appointed counsel. When that interrogation was later used to obtain a death penalty at the penalty phase. This current opinion will be sometimes referred to herein as Soffar III. Soffar's conviction was based indispensably on the statements taken from him by police after three days of interrogation and without an attorney present. The single known eyewitness was neither contacted by defense counsel nor called to testify. Which could have been controverted by that uncalled eyewitness. There was no physical evidence. We address the State's argument that Soffar's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was neither properly 2 exhausted in his state habeas petition nor properly raised in his federal habeas application.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Edward M. Of counsel were Renee M. With him on the brief was Joseph R. This is a patent case. Inc. (
|
|
97-1158 -- BRANSON SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-82 V. ROMER -- 11/20/1998
That first state constitution responded to the federal government's grant of lands for common schools by establishing a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended by inserting the following after
|
|
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily
|
|
97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether the 55 year consecutive mandatory minimum portion of his sentence on the firearms charges violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Walker was charged with 2 two counts in connection with the Mr. Z's who were on their way to make a night deposit at a bank in the same strip mall. The drug trafficking charges (Counts VI IX) were severed from the armed robbery and armed bank robbery charges (Counts I V) for trial. Walker was convicted by a jury of Counts VI IX. Walker was convicted by a jury of Counts I V. Walker was sentenced on June 16. Were unconstitutional.1 The District Court overruled his objections and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 65 years. Section 924(c) provides that the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for possession of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense is five years. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). If the firearm is a short barreled shotgun.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
COM EFFECTIVE CELL V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph W. Plumlee claims that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the trial judge's denial of Plumlee's pre trial motion to substitute counsel on the basis of an irreconcilable conflict that precluded Plumlee's counsel from acting in the role of an advocate. DEL PAPA reasonably and in good faith believed that members of the Washoe County Public Defender's Office were leaking information about his case to another suspect in the case and to the District Attorney. The resulting distrust that arose between Plumlee and his appointed attorney was such that the attorney himself likened his representation of Plumlee to no representation at all. Plumlee was charged in Nevada state court with the armed robbery and murder of Wilbur Richard Beard. Chief Deputy Public Defender Shelly O'Neill was a good friend of John Dewey. Who was both Plumlee's roommate prior to his arrest and a suspect for the murder. Who was the head trial attorney in the Public Defender's Office. Plumlee also suspected that Allison was leaking information to the District Attorney's Office.
|
|
THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association. With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
|
|
GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
William Perry Pendley was on brief. Was on brief. We hold that the IBLA's interpretation of FLPMA section 1714(b) to allow consecutive segregation periods with different purposes is reasonable. That the IBLA's conclusion that the two segregation periods were not identical was not arbitrary or capricious and that the Secretary's withdrawal was not arbitrary or capricious and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A. Statutory Background FLPMA provides that
|
|
00-6129 -- U.S. V. HANEY -- 08/29/2001
Circuit Judge.
|
|
RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 Budd was convicted on each. CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT TO MOORE CHARGE Budd was convicted of using excessive force against inmate Brandon Moore in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The indictment was constructively amended. [a] constructive amendment results when the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than the one charged in the indictment. Both actual and constructive amendments are considered per se prejudicial and are reversible error. Are not per se prejudicial. A variance
|
|
RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jr. is a former Milwaukee police officer who was arrested for physically abusing a child. Though he was not prosecuted. Anderer was terminated following an internal affairs investigation into this incident. Finding that probable cause existed at the time Anderer was arrested and that the 2 No. 02 3669 speech at issue was not protected by the First Amendment. After the juveniles were handcuffed. While they were being escorted to the patrol cars. One 12 year old boy (whom we will call JR) started shouting that one of the officers who was escorting him to the car. Was touching him on the buttocks and trying to rape him. Three of the juveniles were then transported to the police station by Officer Cook and his partner Officer Jeffrey Logan. JR was placed in a patrol car and driven to the station by Anderer. Several officers noticed that JR was bleeding from the nose and mouth and had blood on his clothing. Mary Hoerig and Because
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That person will immediately think of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world: in 2005. It is also of central importance to the economy of Chicago and Northern Illinois. Its claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were resolved in the FAA's favor by the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Village of Bensenville v. By approving the City's plan and determining that the plan was eligible for federal funding. Which is owned by the City. Was prepared and will be implemented by the City. Which is prepared to proceed without federal funds if necessary.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Bourbeau and Bourbeau was on brief. With whom Stephen Dyer was on brief pro se. These four consolidated appeals are emblematic of the difficulties that courts face in dealing with the new sentencing regime. Although the call is close. We hold that Amendment 506 is a reasonable implementation of the statutory mandate. 3 is therefore valid. 762 63 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that the primary purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act are to provide certainty. One such set of marching orders is conveyed by 28 U.S.C. 994(h). Which provides in part: The Commission shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of defendants in which the defendant is eighteen years old or older and [has been convicted of a violent 4 crime or felony drug offense and has at least two such prior convictions]. A defendant is regarded as a career offender if he was at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense of conviction.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Hamilton is incarcerated at the maximum security Potosi The facility provides crossCorrectional Center (Potosi).1 denominational religious facilities inside prison buildings. American Indian inmates at Potosi are allowed to pray. American Indians are also allowed to carry medicine bags containing ceremonial items and have access to a ceremonial pipe and kinnikinnik (a ceremonial
|
|
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
Circuit Judge: Harry Seidman was convicted on September 26. (2) that the district court's instructions on 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 were improper. I. Seidman was employed by the International Organization of Masters. Seidman was personally authorized to sign checks on the Union's behalf. Was the chief financial officer of the Union. The Union office was located in New York City. The Union office was moved to Maryland sometime in 1984 or 1985. 2 major portion of the Secretary/Treasurer's time was devoted to handling contract grievances for Union members. The Union was in poor financial condition. Were incurred by the Union published monthly newspaper. Ronald Schoop was an independent contractor who provided printing services to the Union through the corporate entity
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and amended complaint that they were transferred from Atkinson to another elementary school in the same district in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and that the last minute hearing violated their right to due process. We now REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs' transfers were in retaliation for their protected speech. Factual History Plaintiffs were school teachers at Atkinson. Stating that they were neither dedicated leaders nor supportive of the administration. That they resisted positive change.1 Exacerbating Atkinson's academic woes were its divisive faculty and its glaring student discipline problem. Because the Atkinson faculty was not cohesive. Too many academic decisions were made individually rather than collectively as an institution. Were vocal in their complaints about discipline2 and took action by compiling signatures on a petition that proposed changes to Atkinson's discipline policies.3 Under Principal LaDita Howard's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was armed with a rifle. While Peoples was armed with a deadly weapon. Recommended that Peoples be sentenced to death for each murder by an 11 to 1 vote. 2 This opinion is organized as follows. He joined Peoples and the Franklins who were sitting around a table. 3 Peoples knew about the Corvette because he had been a member of a work crew that built a fence around the Franklins's backyard and from time to time had performed odd jobs in and around the Franklin residence. 3 Peoples soon left the table to look for the Franklins' ten year old son. He brought him to the table where Gooden and the boy's parents were sitting. Gooden replaced her gag and 4 Paul Franklin was seriously disabled as a result of shrapnel injuries suffered in Vietnam. Gooden remained with the Corvette and pick up truck while all of this was taking place. Was walking toward the Talladega Downs when Peoples arrived at the apartment complex. He told her that it was an early birthday present for his wife. As they were talking. She noticed what he was wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when
|
|
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
The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is from this judgment that Mr. Although the parties have not raised the issue here. We are obliged to consider. Since he was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of that agreement. We do not have the power to entertain the appeal. The essential facts are these. Was originally chartered in 1963. The amendment was approved by referendum in the Town's November election. The Town Charter was amended to contain the provision:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
|
|
01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003
Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision on this issue was neither based on an unreasonable determination of the relevant facts nor contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law. That she was going to a party thrown by her friend Michelle Trammell at Trammell's trailer home just outside of Cleveland. She was accompanied not by her expected date who had car troubles but by a man she had met at the Rocky Top Market in Cleveland on her way to the party. Roark did not return and was never heard from again. The Mustang's license plate number was entered into the National Crime Information Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jr. was convicted in August 2001 of drug trafficking in Virginia. He was sentenced to 420 months' imprisonment. While his conviction was pending appeal. Kennedy was brought to testify on two separate occasions before a grand jury that was investigating drug and money laundering activities in the Danville. He was subsequently indicted for perjury based upon his testimony. Claiming that they were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and were the result of prosecutorial misconduct. There was insufficient evidence here of prosecutorial misconduct amounting to a deprivation of due process. Kennedy's testimony was therefore admissible at his prosecution for perjury. KENNEDY 3 While his appeal was pending. Was to probe drug trafficking and money laundering offenses in the Danville. The specific purpose of Kennedy's appearance was to elicit information about other individuals dealing drugs in Danville. About certain land transactions in which Kennedy was involved. Kennedy was not a target of the investigation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to navigate between two equally important interests: the church's right to access a government building that is open to other groups. We conclude that the district court erred when it found that the church was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim and therefore abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. We have FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. The County's goal in making these meeting rooms available is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Taj Becker is a medical doctor in St. She was investigated by Utah's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) for alleged billing irregularities. Those charges were later dismissed by state prosecutors concerned about the methods MFCU used to obtain records and assess Becker's billing practices. (1) This Cross Appeal raises no issues not implicated by the Appellant's brief. (2) The Honorable Claire V. Sitting by designation.
After the charges were dismissed. Alleging that the MFCU investigation was a sham to force her to pay civil penalties to avoid criminal prosecution. Her lawsuit was based on several federal and state theories. I. Factual Background Becker is a board certified neurologist practicing in St. The MFCU investigation centered on a suspicion that Becker
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All of whom are government officials. One count is devoted to federal law and another to state law. Substantive Facts The district court stated the background facts that gave rise to this case as follows: The plaintiffs in this case are a Michigan circuit judge. Nor have plaintiffs moved yet for class certification. Plaintiffs purport to represent all active and retired Michigan judges who are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
CV 88 00379 BJR OPINION *James Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline Albright. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellees are illegal immigrants and organizations assisting such immigrants who seek to legalize their status under a legalization program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended. This version is identical to that one except for this paragraph. Terri was getting ready to go out to pick up some food at a local restaurant. She called the police to report that her car was missing around 10:00 that night. Reported that Terri was missing at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. Which were wet. Noted that the tires and undercarriage of his car were also wet. Terri was found naked except for a shirt and bra. Which were pulled up over her breasts. Jaw were fractured. Her face and body were severely bruised and much of the skin of her front side was torn up. Michael Morales was Ortega's cousin. Blood was found on the hammer. There was not enough to get a blood type. A wet towel smelling of ammonia was in a wastebasket. Morales was arrested and tried and convicted for rape and murder. So was Ortega. His separate case is not before us. Was also Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Though it was not entirely over when he became Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Rick told Christine that he was crying because he had written Randy Blythe a letter proposing a sexual relationship.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: No holiday season is complete. At issue in this case is the holiday display policy promulgated by the Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA].
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA].
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The relevant facts are undisputed. Hechinger was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he was tried in state court without representation by an attorney. The state trial court determined that Fischetti was capable of representing himself and had him proceed pro se. Fischetti was convicted of thirty eight counts of burglary. Is it proper for the trial court to force that defendant to represent himself? If the correct course for the trial court here would have been to compel Fischetti to continue with his appointed counsel. Was the court's actual decision to compel the defendant to proceed without counsel
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when he was tried in state court without representation by an attorney. The state trial court determined that Fischetti was capable of representing himself and had him proceed pro se. Fischetti was convicted of thirty eight counts of burglary. Is it proper for the trial court to force that defendant to represent himself? If the correct course for the trial court here would have been to compel Fischetti to continue with his appointed counsel. Was the court's actual decision to compel the defendant to proceed without counsel
|
|
96-3343 -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Glenn T. Of counsel on the brief was James B. This case raises the question of whether an equivalent is foreseeable within the meaning of Festo Corp. v. Inc.'s (collectively
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge An apolitical government employee appeals a grant of summary judgment rejecting her claim that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment rights because she failed to support the administration or political party in power. Galli alleges that she was unlawfully terminated from her position with the Commission because she was neither an active Democrat nor a 3 supporter of then newly elected Democratic Governor James McGreevey. She was hired to serve on the Commission in 1984 during the Republican administration of Governor Thomas Kean. She was the Commission's Director of Environmental Education. Galli claims that she was not registered with a political party and kept her lack of political affiliation private. Galli never shared her political views with her supervisor and was not asked to participate in any partisan political activity. Solid waste management is an affiliate of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and is governed by a seven member Board. Levin was appointed as the Director of the Department of Community Affairs.
|
|
96-3343A -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998
Is corrected as follows. The statutory citations are corrected to read
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
|
|
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
Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was objectively unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Ramirez was caught walking out of a Sears department store in broad daylight carrying a $199 VCR for which he had not paid. The encounter was without violence. Prosecutors could have charged Ramirez with a petty theft misdemeanor. After he was convicted of this
|
|
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
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision.
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the arrest was invalid because the police never obtained or attempted to obtain a warrant. Was walking near Fisher's apartment investigating noise complaints regarding Fisher's upstairs neighbor. Fisher's apartment is on the bottom floor of the apartment complex and has a sliding glass door leading out to an enclosed patio. Fisher was generally unresponsive. Whether Fisher pointed the rifle at Serrano is not clear: At trial. Serrano suspected that Fisher was intoxicated and. CITY OF SAN JOSE Sergeant Ryan was among the first to arrive. Believed that Fisher was intoxicated. It is not clear whether she put the phone back on the hook. It was busy throughout the remainder of the standoff. Sandra informed the police that no one else was inside the apartment. Who was observing the apartment from across the street. Reported that Fisher was pointing one of his rifles at Ryan and Males. Who were the officers closest to Fisher's apartment and were sheltering themselves behind a tree. Boler also reported that Fisher was moving the rifles around his apartment.
|
|
HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After Palmer's second conviction was reversed. Cherie Palmer was permitted to testify against Palmer in his third trial. Palmer was again convicted and again sentenced to death. Contending that his second trial violated his right against double jeopardy and that his impending third trial would also constitute a double jeopardy violation because the properly admitted evidence in both his first and second trials was legally insufficient to convict him. The privilege had been inapplicable only in cases where the crime charged was rape. A. Substantive Review of State Court Decisions Our power to review underlying state court decisions in habeas corpus cases is restricted to the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to
|
|
CRAIG V. SINGLETARY
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Craig v. The panel issued another opinion which did not supersede but instead was designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABB5449C604ABF178825729E007626A3/$file/9899003withgraphic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Note 3 (after the en banc court is chosen. The judges on the panel decide whether there will be oral argument). 3113 3114 COMER v. A three judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. The District Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further proceedings voluntary. We review the District Court's finding that Comer is competent for clear error. That we review de novo the District Court's determination that Comer's decision to waive further proceedings is voluntary.1 Accordingly. 400 (1993) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6147.htm">99-6147 -- VALDEZ V. WARD -- 07/27/2000<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Geraldo Valdez was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Valdez is a Mexican immigrant who has lived in Oklahoma for some time. Barron was a homosexual who apparently showed a sexual interest in Mr. Telling him he was going to kill him and that according to the Bible homosexuals do not deserve to live. Which was written in English. This confession was taped and played for the jury. <p> Mr. Valdez was arraigned the morning of July 26 and counsel was appointed for him. Valdez was still in custody. Valdez who was present at the bar on the evening of the murder. Valdez was conducted entirely in Spanish. Agent Irwin identified himself and emphasized he was only there to establish Mr. Valdez stated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/93-5123.op2.html">CRAIG V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Craig v. The panel issued another opinion which did not supersede but instead was designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1113.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. Gary (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR>
The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTI0NzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-2471_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howard was convicted of various charges. Because we find that the trial court's limitations on cross examination of the State's expert witness and its denial of Howard's ability to call an expert witness were contrary to clearly established federal law and were not harmless. I. FACTS Howard is currently incarcerated in New York State pursuant to a judgment of conviction on Burglary in the First Degree. Metz was found dead in a chair located in an upstairs bedroom in her home. Was arrested in connection with the incident. Which was not allowed in evidence. Metz' body started jumping and then was still. Which was likewise not admitted into evidence. Metz say something while the three men were in her house and claimed that both Howard and Eric Williams told him that Ms. Metz had slapped Howard while the two were upstairs. Or even if there was a second level in the house. Howard's sneaker prints were only found in the kitchen. Which was 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 induced by the stress of the burglary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65378EE06236E19B882573410049E736/$file/0435876.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is part of the Kent School District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4351.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the record sufficiently supports the Village's claim that the liquor prohibition is a reasonable attempt to reduce or eliminate the undesirable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1063.html">SEXTANT AVIONIQUE, S.A. V. ANALOG DEVICES<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief was Maxim H. With him on the brief were Donald R. Which are small devices capable of detecting acceleration and which find utility in avionic and automotive applications. Was issued to inventor Gerard Marcillat on March 6. The flexible blades are anchored at their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTI0NzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-2471_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howard was convicted of various charges. Because we find that the trial court's limitations on cross examination of the State's expert witness and its denial of Howard's ability to call an expert witness were contrary to clearly established federal law and were not harmless. I. FACTS Howard is currently incarcerated in New York State pursuant to a judgment of conviction on Burglary in the First Degree. Metz was found dead in a chair located in an upstairs bedroom in her home. Was arrested in connection with the incident. Which was not allowed in evidence. Metz' body started jumping and then was still. Which was likewise not admitted into evidence. Metz say something while the three men were in her house and claimed that both Howard and Eric Williams told him that Ms. Metz had slapped Howard while the two were upstairs. Or even if there was a second level in the house. Howard's sneaker prints were only found in the kitchen. Which was 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 induced by the stress of the burglary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTI0NzEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/01-2471%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howard was convicted of various charges. Because we find that the trial court's limitations on cross examination of the State's expert witness and its denial of Howard's ability to call an expert witness were contrary to clearly established federal law and were not harmless. I. FACTS Howard is currently incarcerated in New York State pursuant to a judgment of conviction on Burglary in the First Degree. Metz was found dead in a chair located in an upstairs bedroom in her home. Was arrested in connection with the incident. Which was not allowed in evidence. Metz' body started jumping and then was still. Which was likewise not admitted into evidence. Metz say something while the three men were in her house and claimed that both Howard and Eric Williams told him that Ms. Metz had slapped Howard while the two were upstairs. Or even if there was a second level in the house. Howard's sneaker prints were only found in the kitchen. Which was 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 induced by the stress of the burglary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1185p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Died before this opinion was filed. Whose first degree murder conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. When Flamer's appeal was initially presented to this panel. He argued: (1) that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and therefore should have been suppressed. (2) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. (5) that the district court record should have been expanded to include the criminal record of Flamer's accomplice. The fourth of these arguments was similar to an argument that was raised in Bailey v. Which was heard by another panel of our court while Flamer's appeal was under consideration by this panel. Before a panel opinion was filed in either case. The panel that initially heard Flamer's appeal discusses and rejects all of Flamer's arguments other than the argument that was considered by the court in banc. The latter issue is addressed and rejected in a separate opinion that is being filed simultaneously on behalf of the in banc court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DC075690643E627882570F80008C7F7/$file/0699001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We find that it is not a second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 or. Because we conclude that Allen's Lackey claim is a second or successive application which could
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1249.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)<BR></A><BR>
The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTI0NzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-2471_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howard was convicted of various charges. Because we find that the trial court's limitations on cross examination of the State's expert witness and its denial of Howard's ability to call an expert witness were contrary to clearly established federal law and were not harmless. I. FACTS Howard is currently incarcerated in New York State pursuant to a judgment of conviction on Burglary in the First Degree. Metz was found dead in a chair located in an upstairs bedroom in her home. Was arrested in connection with the incident. Which was not allowed in evidence. Metz' body started jumping and then was still. Which was likewise not admitted into evidence. Metz say something while the three men were in her house and claimed that both Howard and Eric Williams told him that Ms. Metz had slapped Howard while the two were upstairs. Or even if there was a second level in the house. Howard's sneaker prints were only found in the kitchen. Which was 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 induced by the stress of the burglary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/994081.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the policy prohibited no more speech than was already unlawful under federal and state anti discrimination laws. Held that the policy is constitutional and enter ed judgment for the school district. The full text of the Policy is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion. We will briefly review the most relevant portions here. Nurturing school environment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/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-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E3BE2ADE24FD421688256ACA005A4A47/$file/9955519.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the Riverside plan in violation of ERISA's anticutback rule. We conclude that he is correct. I. The material facts of this case are undisputed. Riverside's retirement plan was subsequently amended. Is that the terms of his second retirement under the amended plan impermissibly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0127p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's conviction was vacated in 2000 after DNA tests established that the sole physical evidence linking Plaintiff to either of the crime scenes several hairs could not have come from Plaintiff. All charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on August 25. Was awakened by an unknown. Page 3 determined was Vaseline. Police were called to the area. Told Plaintiff that they were investigating an incident unrelated to Mrs. Were allowed to search Plaintiff's apartment. V had seen Plaintiff at the apartment complex and was now sure that he was her assailant. Clark was presumably referring to Mrs. Noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B307D1805CDA43FC88256E5A00707CD0/$file/9955519.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael contends that his early retirement benefits were impermissibly reduced by a subsequent amendment to the Riverside plan in violation of ERISA's anticutback rule. We conclude that he is correct. I. The material facts of this case are undisputed. Riverside's retirement plan was subsequently amended. Is that the terms of his second retirement under the amended plan impermissibly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/637C3C668C1A623888256DF30060DB7E/$file/0135954.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. There is no indication that they were running to give her aid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another the defendant who initiated. Were charged with committing the murder of Ann Serafino and the 1 No. 03 3200 Getsy v. Santine was charged with hiring the other three defendants to kill Chuckie Serafino. Santine was sentenced to life imprisonment when a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder but not guilty of hiring Getsy to commit the murder. McNulty and Hudach were sentenced to life imprisonment after they were allowed to plead guilty. Expressed its dismay about the disproportionate nature of these inconsistent results: That Hudach received a lesser penalty than Getsy is not surprising Hudach did not enter the Serafino home. He was offered a plea bargain. Getsy was not. McNulty's case was not a case of the state's needing to secure testimony to obtain a conviction on a more culpable person. It is also troubling that Santine did not receive the death sentence even though he initiated the crime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2040.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I. BACKGROUND Certain facts are not in dispute. Martinez is a former mortgage loan officer at (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Martinez and she was the subject of a federal investigation into suspected embezzlement from the Bank. Again invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege: 1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/011629p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5254a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1849.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants Bullen. Nicholson and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellees Visiting Nurse Association of North Shore. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Medicaid is a joint federal state program designed to afford medical benefits to low income individuals. A State which elects to participate in Medicaid is eligible to receive federal funds only if its State Plan is approved by the Federal Health Care Financing Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AE8C752D9F8836788256CAE00581170/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/022366P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was added to the South Dakota Constitution as the result of a 1998 referendum. I. Amendment E was codified as four sections of Article XVII of the South Dakota Constitution. Five of which are relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 6 The first of these relevant exemptions is for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></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-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7ACE985610E84B3188256ED900685F91/$file/0235805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993863.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to decide whether. The Supreme Court recently held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/962699P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Barrett was again tried and convicted. His second conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. The State then sought a rehearing and the matter was reheard en banc. Were found several miles apart in rural Iowa on the morning of February 23. Cynthia Walker had been shot three times and was found dead Because we agree with the panel's holdings on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and Barrett's First and Fifth Amendment claims. Those portions of the panel's vacated opinion are essentially restated herein in Parts II(A) and (C). 22 on a gravel road. Carol Ann Willits had been shot once through the temple and was found in the front seat of her car on a nearby blacktop road. She was blindfolded and was wearing men's work gloves. The gun was found in her lap. Cynthia Walker was Barrett's girlfriend at the time of her death. Carol Ann Willits may also have been dating him. Although her friends testified that the two were only friends. Was found in the car near her body.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED1D4EA9DA4EAA228825734D00532B73/$file/0530457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ANKENY 11467 ORDER The government's request for clarification is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 7239 (490 F.3d 744. Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/676D397A1C9495DF88256EAD005AB833/$file/0017425.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2004 is amended as follows: Replace the first paragraph at Slip Op. p. 3374.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011608.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The claims were denied by the plan administrator who refused to recognize the validity of the amendment on the ground that it was adopted by an improper body. The employees filed suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and were granted an interlocutory judgment declaring that the 1992 amendment was valid after a three day bench trial. I. The much litigated facts serving as background to this case have been the subject of numerous decisions. Are three former employees of District No.1 MEBA/NMU (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002358.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This civil rights action mounts a Fourth Amendment challenge to a practice of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office which the parties have labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1402b.html">NEXT WAVE PRSNAL COMM V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appel lants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/029.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Dennis Daniels was convicted in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County. Daniels was indicted in early 1990 by a Mecklenburg County grand jury for the strangling death of his aunt. He was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon against his wife. We are unable to improve on that factual summary. Defendant was behind on his rent. He was having marital problems. Who was lying on the bed in their bedroom. Defendant's wife and son were finally able to run out the front door. Was aroused by the commotion and went outside. Officer Griffith told defendant that he was going to jail for assault. When Griffith asked defendant why he was making this request. Defendant responded:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1402b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Thomas G. Klee were on the brief for amici curiae Senator Robert G. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Michael F. Is bound by the usual rules governing the treatment of such obligations in bank ruptcy. Con gress also directed the Commission to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972512A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants are ten former obstetrical patients at MUSC whose urine was tested pursuant to the Policy. We will refer to the defendants collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2207E676809A355688256D270000BDC3/$file/9856455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. slip op. at 13347. Insert the following footnote:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA3B3F9E453575FF88256E5A006A3286/$file/0017425.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The group's fourth demonstration is the centerpiece of this case. Lead plaintiff Sister Bernie Galvin was in contact with the United States Park Police to discuss a permit for RWHP's planned demonstration.1 DefenThe relevant regulations. Are found at 36 C.F.R. § 2.51 and provide in relevant part: (a) Public assemblies. Parades and other public expressions of views are allowed within park areas. Issue a permit on proper application unless: (1) A prior application for a permit for the same time and place has been made that has been or will be granted and the activities authorized by that permit do not reasonably allow multiple occupancy of that particular area. Or (2) It reasonably appears that the event will present a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Or (3) The event is of such nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular location applied for. The building was located some distance away from the Wherry Housing. Reverend Karen Oliveto described the purpose of the protest as being to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/99-1349.htm">99-1349 -- REES V. DAHL -- 11/30/2001<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/987156.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Korula T. Of counsel on the brief were Joseph Lin. Of counsel was C.J. With him on the brief were James A. BACKGROUND I 02 Micro is the holder of U.S. The principal use of the circuit is to convert the direct current supplied by laptop batteries into the alternating current required for the cold cathode fluorescent lamps (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052262p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Throughout this opinion the plaintiff appellant will be referred to simply as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/001492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Becomes unconstitutional once an execution date is set because at that time it ceases to be in the prisoner's medical interest. The facts giving rise to Singleton's conviction were set forth in the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion on direct appeal: The victim. Was murdered in York's Grocery Store at Hamburg on June 1. The evidence of guilt in this case is overwhelming. Charles Singleton is killing me.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961185A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/993536P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have each brought Rule 10b 52 actions against Green Tree Financial Corporation. Contending that their complaints were indeed sufficient to plead securities fraud. Green Tree is a financial services corporation that originally specialized in lending money on house trailers. Because manufactured housing loans are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A9273592F902AFA88256C2C00577BBB/$file/9856455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both federal habeas petitions were initially timely filed in the district court by Ford proceeding pro se. Both were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></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-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief. Burling</U> were on brief. Flom LLP</U> were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1763.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will &. Alvarez LLP</U> were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P></UL> <P> <TABLE> <TR> <TD VALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Motley Page 2 Kentucky law1 and was thus unavailable for cross examination at Fulcher's trial. We find that the admission of Ash's statements did violate Fulcher's clearly established rights and that the error was not harmless. Charlie Bramer was found beaten and stabbed to death in his home in Jefferson County. Fulcher was convicted of burglary. No murder weapon was found. Fulcher's fingerprints were not discovered at the crime scene. He and Fulcher were drinking and watching football at Fulcher's house on the day of the crime. Wright testified that there was nothing he could do to stop Fulcher. Fulcher told Wright that he killed Bramer because Bramer would otherwise have been able to identify them. Patricia Sue Ash was pulled over in a car matching the description of Fulcher's vehicle. Ash could not recall whether Fulcher was present for the discussion. Wright later testified that he was. Where it was recovered by the police. Who had known Fulcher before the murder and who was an inmate with Fulcher. Are carried forward for later trials of pre 1992 crimes by Kentucky Rule of Evidence 107(b) (2005).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982211.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The state and local taxing authorities who had received and refused or failed to refund the recordation and transfer tax proceeds were located in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Each of the taxing authorities was served with notice of the motion and each responded by filing motions for abstention. NVR was exempt from transfer and recordation taxes on any real property transfers completed between April 6. The date that its reorganization plan was fully implemented and the bankruptcy period ended. Specifically holding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0330n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Timothy Chaney was shot and killed outside 864 Philip Street in Detroit. Kelvin McCray was sitting in the front passenger's seat of that car. Orlando Scott was sitting in the back seat on the passenger's side. Metrish McCray's strongest claim is that the admission into evidence of an out of court statement by Scott violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. We have no basis to disturb the state court's conclusion that the error was harmless. He waived his claim that the admission of his allegedly involuntary confession violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self incrimination: the section of his appellate brief purportedly addressing that claim in fact discusses a distinct Fourth Amendment claim on which no certificate of appealability was issued. His claim that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel is procedurally defaulted: our precedent compels us to conclude that the state appellate courts rejected this claim without reaching the substance because McCray did not comply with a state procedural rule.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/01-4176.htm">01-4176 -- AXSON-FLYNN V. JOHNSON -- 02/03/2004<BR></A><BR>
Who is Mormon. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims and found that they were also entitled to qualified immunity. Sandy Shotwell asked Axson Flynn if there was anything she would feel uncomfortable doing or saying as an actor. Although the record is unclear as to whether Axson Flynn explained at the time why she had those objections. The district court summarized her reasons as follows: <p> [H]er refusal to use the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/023101P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The post waiver statements were voluntary and are admissible notwithstanding the earlier Miranda violation. We join the Third and Fourth Circuits to hold that a Miranda violation does not demand the suppression of derivative physical evidence if the non Mirandized statement was voluntary. Although the situation at Defendant's home was clearly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint is that during the class period of August 21. E&Y is being sued because it served as NDC's independent auditor and issued audit opinions on the Company's 2003 and 2004 financial statements. After the opposition and reply papers were filed. 2002 through the first quarter of fiscal year Channel stuffing is a practice whereby a company floods distribution channels by employing incentives to induce customers into purchasing their products in large quantities. If
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E66B9F1393A2C696882572FE00767B89/$file/0530457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted on four counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun. Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence seized during the search of his residence should have been suppressed. (2) the district court should have dismissed all but one count of felon in possession. (3) the government should have been required to allege Defendant's prior convictions in the indictment and prove them to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold that the motion to suppress was properly denied. That the convictions were multiplicitous and that material errors were made at sentencing. The altercation with Defendant took place when Rayley went to the house where their son was living. Found that Defendant was living there. She confronted Defendant about her belief that he was supplying drugs to 7224 UNITED STATES v. Rayley told police that she believed Defendant was using methamphetamines and that he might flee or shoot at police. The case was referred to Officer Rhodes of the Domestic Violence Reduction Unit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/00-1100c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzNDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5341-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These motions were premised on plaintiffs' lack of standing and defendants' qualified immunity and were made by public officer defendants in their individual capacities. Which was to be held June 78. Field Day was constrained by the provisions of New 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 York's Mass Gathering Law. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o) (providing that the Mass Gathering Law is to apply to gatherings that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR>
Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1100c.html">GREG RUGGIERO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Federal Radio Commission).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>See 47 U.S.C. s 301.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ". It was clear to the Commission that action needed to be taken to stop unlicensed broadcast ing. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low power radio rules and sought public comment upon whether it should ". 1999) set out in the Low Power Proposal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Id. at p p 53 54.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This licensing condition for broadcast pirates was applicable both to individuals and to corporate applicants. Including the applicant's officers and directors.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Id. at p 54. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission's proposal conditionally to license former pirates was received with dismay in the Congress.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Senator Gregg.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1157.htm">97-1157 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.R-1 V. MOODY'S INVESTOR'S SERVICES INC. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
Contending that Moody's evaluation was materially false. It reasoned that Moody's article was protected by the First Amendment because it neither stated nor implied an assertion that was provably false. BACKGROUND</u><strong></center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong> Because we are reviewing the district court's decision to grant Moody's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Concluding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250a.htm">96-3250A -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is a <p> member of the firm Morris. Two and three of the opinion are attached for your convenience. <p> Sincerely. The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250.htm">96-3250 -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0276p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in that his trial and appellate counsel failed to challenge the arresting officer's reliance upon a police flyer containing information that Petitioner was a drug courier. The state failed to offer any proof that the police officer who provided the information in the police flyer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was involved in criminal activity. Including that the state trial court erred in denying Petitioner's suppression motion because Petitioner's stop was unconstitutional by virtue of its duration. In sum: (1) that the trial court erred because the state failed to establish the factual predicate for the dispatch that led to Petitioner's further detention and (2) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue this deficiency in the state's case in the posthearing briefs and on appeal. Contending that the Ohio Court of Appeals misconstrued or ignored Petitioner's claim that Petitioner's appellate counsel was ineffective.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kentucky were conducting surveillance of Watford. Who was wanted in the State of Illinois on charges of murder and in the Central District of Illinois for violation of federal probation. Watford was also suspected of being involved in drug trafficking and maintaining a storage facility at which he stored between two and three kilograms of cocaine. The Marshals were warned that Watford likely would be armed with a 9mm handgun and wearing a bullet proof vest. They pulled over the yellow Toyota pick up truck in which Watford was riding as a passenger and arrested him without incident. When Hale later left his apartment and was confronted by police. Agents found 28 baggies that were later confirmed to contain 292.6 grams of crack cocaine. 000 in cash and a driver's license displaying Watford's photograph was also present in the apartment. Watford was not immediately charged in that district. Was instead removed to state custody in Illinois to stand trial on the unrelated murder charges. On the day the Indictment was returned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9821.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are as follows: 2 In early February 1993. Who was age 20. The bullets were designed for police use. This type of bullet is referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3135.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STONE (4/22/1998, NO. 96-3135)<BR></A><BR>
Senior District Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P><CENTER> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> All three defendants were charged in Count I of an eleven count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant Kelly Knight Stone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE50BA1A66862639882572F1007CE046/$file/0355534.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We consider whether Darrell Anthony Gautt's constitutional due process right to be informed of the charges against him was violated when he was charged with a sentencing enhancement under one statute. Was alleged by number and by nearly verbatim description in the information. We hold that Gautt's due process right was indeed violated when. He was sentenced pursuant to a twenty five year tolife enhancement. Ordering that the state release Gautt unless it re sentences him.2 All citations are to the 1998 version of the California Penal Code. Arguing that his equal protection rights were violated when the prosecution exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. LEWIS I The barebones facts of Gautt's crime are that on January 10. The facts that do matter here are procedural and concern the content of Gautt's information. A conviction under section 12022.53(b) translates into a ten year sentence enhancement.3 The information Section 1203.06(a)(1)(A) provides a different penalty than is provided for by section 12022.53(b).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/977309.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented for our review is whether applying AEDPA's gatekeeping provisions to a 28 U.S.C. S 2255 motion filed after AEDPA's effective date would have an impermissible retroactive result if the movantfiled his first S 2255 motion prior to AEDPA's enactment. We conclude that the application of AEDPA's gatekeeping provisions to Kevin Roberson's second S 2255 motion would have no impermissible retroactive result. One of his arguments was that the sentencing court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1415.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Robert A. This case is the second appeal to this court in a patent litigation between Cross Medical Products. The court determined that claim 5 of the '555 patent was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by Medtronic's redesigned screws. That claim 7 of the '555 patent was not infringed by either the original or redesigned screws. The district court did not have the benefit of this court's opinion in the First Appeal before issuing the second permanent injunction. 424 F.3d at 1299. 05 1415 2 While the first appeal was pending. The district court determined that a narrowing amendment to claim 5 during prosecution was only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2096.htm">01-2096 -- COUNTY OF SANTA FE V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW MEXICO -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: James Callahan was convicted and sentenced to death in Alabama state court for the intentional murder of Rebecca Suzanne Howell. Which was granted in part and denied in part. (3) his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Callahan did not argue to this Court that his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. There have been two trials. It is necessary for us to review the entire history of the case. At the club where he was performing with his band in Jacksonville. Was a student at Jacksonville State University. Howell was supposed to return to the club. Howell was found dead of asphyxiation in the Tallasseehatchee Creek in Calhoun County. Alabama her hands were taped together. Her belt was on upside down. She was not wearing pantyhose. Jimmy Dunagan was in his car outside of a washerteria six or seven blocks from the Norge Washerteria.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. A supporting affidavit that was crossreferenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search. BATF agent Michael Johnson uncovered the scheme when he found documents in a Missouri gun dealer's shop that linked Baranski to the dealer and when he learned that one of Baranski's letters of interest was forged. The agents were met by Saeid Shafizadeh. At which point the officers told him that it was under seal. One agent then told Shafizadeh that they were looking for firearms owned by Baranski (or by his company. Shafizadeh complained that the search was illegal because the warrant itself failed to describe with particularity what the agents could seize. Escorted the agents to the basement of the building where the bonded warehouse was located. The court concluded that probable cause supported the warrant and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-40863-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kalina sought to detain Erika Flores because she was parked on the wrong side of the road and because. The district court found there were genuine issues of material fact as to each of the Fourth Amendment claims and therefore denied Kalina's motion for summary judgment on those claims. The district court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims because it found those claims were properly brought under the Fourth Amendment. I. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7044a.html">A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="663"></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-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213654.opn2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEwODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1080-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is not entitled to dismissal on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We consider whether defendant Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is an arm of the State of New York entitled to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity. We conclude that it is not. I. Factual Background The background facts that follow are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff Harold Woods was first employed as a per diem substitute teacher at Rondout Valley Central High School in September 1999. Because he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5293a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0280p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1287.htm">97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR>
McVeigh (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C492BF44E74CBDFC88256E530056B073/$file/0217298.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) whether it is a violation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was demoted from the position of assistant principal to teacher because she spoke out against race discrimination (her free speech claims) and because of her race (her discrimination claims). We conclude that Love Lane has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was demoted in retaliation for her speech. We also conclude that Martin is not entitled. I. Love Lane is employed by the Winston Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education. From 1988 until 1998 she was an assistant principal at four middle and elementary schools. She was told that her strongest skills were in the areas of communication and problem solving. Where Martin said
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-3357.opa.html">SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/95-3357.opa.html">SCOTT V. ADMIN. COMM. OF ALLSTATE AGENTS PENSION PLAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Scott v. The amendments to the Plan were ineffective and therefore could not retroactively reduce benefits accrued after January 1. Were not followed. The amendments at issue were not retroactively effective to January 1. Was to eliminate perceived discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees. One of the most common instances of the discrimination Congress wanted to eliminate was the social security offset.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2184.htm">02-2184 -- MARSHALL V. COLUMBIA LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL -- 09/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
We are not in a position to judge the truth of those allegations at this early stage in the litigation. Marshall alleges that the traffic stop and arrest were made on account of his race and without probable cause. The defendants are Officer Porter. Plaintiff contends that Hobbs police chief Tony Knott and the City of Hobbs are liable for those actions under supervisory and municipal liability theories respectively. We will refer to these parties collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0347p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4057.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These matters are before the court on two separate petitions for rehearing. The petitions were filed separately and correspond to the two opinions issued in these appeals on April 17. The requests for panel rehearing are denied by the original panel which decided these cases. The en banc petitions were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested. The decisions of the panel will stand. The en banc requests are denied. Judges Lucero and McConnell have filed dissents to the denial. They are attached and incorporated in this order. That response is also incorporated in this order. Because the panel's opinion will leave our circuit unnecessarily entangled in future review of time. It is important to distinguish between transitory and permanent speech. Not unlike most public parks in America in which permanent monuments have been placed. The government must have exercised some control over the form and content of the speech before the fact. 1141 43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding sign was government speech where the city had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50F67AA133DE5D8088256D280073E440/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.* The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. *Judge Rawlinson was recused. 6460 SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. What makes CU's ratings particularly useful is the thorough explanation of the testing procedures employed. Is no exception. The explanation is not written for morons. It is geared to an intelligent. Yet the careful reader will not fail to understand the central facts that undergird Suzuki's claim in this lawsuit. This is the death of consumer ratings: It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer review that a band of determined lawyers can't pick apart in front of a SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard earned dollars. The majority's analysis is tainted throughout by its failure to articulate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-8005.wpd.html">GARDETO V. MASON<BR></A><BR>
Gardetto claims that the district court committed reversible error by submitting the question of whether her speech was entitled to First Amendment protection to the jury rather than deciding the issue as a matter of law. Gardetto was responsible for developing programs designed to support and provide guidance to adult students. (4) her criticism of Mason for holding himself out as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE3NjRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1764_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Jeffrey Schneider was tried in 2002 on charges of fraud. Despite the testimony of several witnesses that Schneider was involved in the fraudulent scheme. He was acquitted. Which permits such an award where
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0099p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this case we are required to decide the constitutionality of Tennessee's statute making available the purchase of automobile license plates with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></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-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1973.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. The district court concluded that Seminole Tribe was a bar and dismissed the suit. Ninety six current and former probation and parole officers (plaintiffs appellants) have asserted that the State of Maine improperly failed to pay them overtime in accordance with the requirements imposed by Section 7 of the FLSA. Maine contended that the probation officers were exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were covered employees but came within the FLSA's partial exemption for law enforcement officers. Was challenged under the Commerce Clause as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments were challenged under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the amendments were legitimate expressions of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. Held 5 5 that Congress did not have the power to extend FLSA protections to state employees in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C31B00839883143688256B59000315DF/$file/9917261.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. and Richard Napoleon Brown were each convicted of petty theft. Each was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for 25 years. Because these cases are indistinguishable from Andrade in any material respect. We similarly hold that the California Court of Appeal decisions upholding 25 year to life sentences for petty theft were contrary to and unreasonable applications of clearly established Supreme Court law. All statutory citations are to the California Penal Code. 1986 A defendant with two or more prior
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE3NjQgQW1kX29wbi5wZGY=/03-1764%20Amd_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was part of this panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. Jeffrey Schneider was tried in 2002 on charges of fraud. Despite the testimony of several witnesses that Schneider was involved in the fraudulent scheme. He was acquitted. Which permits such an award where
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 6 a quotation mark is added before the asterisks. The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superseding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/023446P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1.50. The dispute was referred for final disposition to the Honorable Ross A. Royal contends he is entitled to more than nominal damages. Is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. We are not the first court to confront whether section 1997e(e) applies to First Amendment violations. Other courts have not agreed on a uniform interpretation of section 1997e(e). Some courts have charted a different course. Royal's second argument is his claim does not involve mental or emotional injury. Royal apparently contends other types of recovery are available to him. Injunctive and declaratory relief are available to him. 56 (1983) (holding punitive damages are authorized for violations of constitutional rights). Royal was free to seek nominal damages. Congress is well within its authority to balance the interests and reasonably limit a prisoner's relief. 5 The district court awarded $1.00 in nominal damages to Royal. Are the appropriate means of `vindicating' rights whose deprivation has not caused actual.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6054.htm">00-6054 -- CAMFIELD V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/04/2001<BR></A><BR>
Whose rented copy of the movie was obtained from him at his apartment by three OCPD officers. Was unsuccessful on his section 1983 claims and his attempt to have Oklahoma's child pornography statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts Appellant PDS is a Virginia corporation engaged in the business of preparing topographic maps from aerial photography and ground surveys. Appellant Webb was employed by PDS as the photogrammetric manager during this time period. The contractors were then paid according to the actual number of hours worked. After which additional approval was required. Which were then used to prepare the PDS invoices for the VDOT jobs. Would have resulted in PDS leaving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. That Maryland's liquor regulatory scheme is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/989009r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxNjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0169-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we hold that the special condition would have given notice to a reasonable parolee that he should not buy the * The Honorable Richard K. Because no reasonable enforcing officer could have doubted that Scum fell within the terms of the condition. We hold that the special condition was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. A paroled sex offender whose First Amendment rights to sexual material were limited. Circuit Judge: The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a special condition of parole that prohibited the possession of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/99-12813.op3.html">MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5ODVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7985_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or demonstrations that are designed to entice children to congregate. That the prohibition is a content based restriction on speech but that it does not violate the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of protecting children from sexual predators. Hobbs contends principally (a) that the prohibition is not narrowly tailored and hence violates the First Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. That the prohibition is content neutral and nonpunitive. BACKGROUND 19 20 21 22 23 Playland Park (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI2MzctY3IgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/04-2637-cr%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant argues that firearms recovered in his home and his post arrest custodial statement admitting possession of the firearms should have been suppressed because they were obtained as a result of the police conducting an impermissible search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with United States v. Circuit Judge: We consider here whether a law enforcement officer who is lawfully present in a particular area of a home for a purpose other than the execution of an arrest warrant may conduct a protective sweep pursuant to Maryland v. Miller moved to suppress the admission of two firearms and Miller's post arrest 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) makes it unlawful for a person
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945029.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.1 The information charging Delguidice in the instant case was filed June 1. Delguidice was tried and convicted in an unrelated criminal case (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI2MzctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2637-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant argues that firearms recovered in his home and his post arrest custodial statement admitting possession of the firearms should have been suppressed because they were obtained as a result of the police conducting an impermissible search in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with United States v. Circuit Judge: We consider here whether a law enforcement officer who is lawfully present in a particular area of a home for a purpose other than the execution of an arrest warrant may conduct a protective sweep pursuant to Maryland v. Miller moved to suppress the admission of two firearms and Miller's post arrest custodial statement admitting possession of the firearms on the ground that they were procured in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) makes it unlawful for a person
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042134p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement is not applicable here. We will reverse the District Court's denial of Coles's suppression motion. We will vacate Coles's conviction and sentence and remand for further proceedings. Bradley let 3 himself into Coles's room to see if the room was still occupied. The government concedes that this entry was illegal and does not rely on anything seen on this visit in establishing probable cause for the subsequent warrantless The record is inconsistent as to the details of Bradley's initial observations inside room 511. [Bradley] said he observed what he thought was drugs and. Things of items related to drugs and what he thought was a holster.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/04-7203b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945029.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. A second person was struck during the course of this melee. Which resulted in the jury finding Delguidice guilty as to the 1 Delguidice in the instant case was filed June 1. Delguidice was tried and convicted in an unrelated criminal case (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-3251.wpd.html">PHELPS V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is one of a series of cases initiated by the plaintiffs appellants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 from eleven state criminal prosecutions arising from their anti homosexual picketing and from state statutes which allegedly threaten their picketing activities. The district court held that: (1) a state court determination that the criminal prosecutions were not brought in bad faith violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights was entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1738. (2) the Kansas Funeral Picketing Act was unconstitutionally vague. (3) the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Kansas anti stalking law and Kansas telephone and fax harassment law. Phelps are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Who are involved in anti homosexual protests and picketing in Shawnee County. The plaintiffs and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have engaged in a campaign against homosexuality through demonstrating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55423764FC3E2C4B882570A60071834B/$file/0330355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The two proceedings were consolidated in the district court. 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (findings of fact underlying the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error). Most of the narrative is based on the testimony of Portland Police Bureau Detective Sergeant Dirk Anderson. The remainder is based largely on the testimony of Sergeant John Eckhart and Officer Jeffrey Becker. Defendant appellee Jose Luis Ortiz Hernandez was arrested on November 12. Detective Anderson and his partner were eating lunch at a McDonald's restaurant in Portland when they saw the defendant and another man. Detective Anderson testified that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-6241.htm">02-6241 -- PIERCE V. MACY -- 03/02/2004<BR></A><BR>
Because DNA analysis demonstrated that Pierce could not have been the source of the semen found on the rape victim. His conviction was vacated on May 7. He was released from prison. Pierce's complaint is that Dr. Were routinely used to secure convictions. While this system may have provided the citizens of Oklahoma with a false sense of efficient justice. If the allegations are correct. Are limited to the facts and legal issues bearing on the claims against Defendants Gilchrist and Macy. <p> Because Defendants raise only issues of law in connection with their appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Pierce was employed as a landscaper at the Woodlake complex. He was 25 years old. While police were still on the scene. Pierce was taken by police to be viewed by the victim. Pierce was not the rapist. Two witnesses testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the rape. <p> In March of 1986. Pierce was arrested and taken into custody. The arrest warrant was supported by an affidavit filed by an OCPD officer stating that Ms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52F840BF69A5E89F88257077004FB57F/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We review the District Court's determinations that: (1) a debtor's right to a surplus generated by a pension plan is a property interest. (2) an amendment to that pension plan that irrevocably decreases the surplus is a transfer of the property interest. (3) the value surrendered and the value gained as a result of the transfer need not be precisely calculated in this instance in order to conclude that they are not reasonably equivalent. In 1995 Fruehauf entered into contracts with several of its top executives that would pay them significant benefits if the Company or its assets were sold. As the benefits would not accrue to the beneficiaries unless they were still employed by Fruehauf at that time. B. The Emergency Board Meeting Fruehauf continued to have financial difficulties. Although the parties dispute what was considered at this meeting. They discussed an amendment (known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0414p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) the evidence introduced by the government was insufficient to support the jury's verdict on three of the counts. The repository where many of the items seized by the police are stored. Among those items were large quantities of cocaine that Lieutenant Arthur McNamara had seized during a series of drug raids in the 1990s. He was looking specifically for 30 kilograms of cocaine that he had previously seized from Andres Colmines and 10 kilograms of cocaine taken from William Quazada. The investigation revealed that 101 kilograms of cocaine were missing from the Property Room. One of the packages examined during the investigation was labeled as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.* *This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR>
We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D6495646EB35EBE882571ED007FCF23/$file/0455122.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912527.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the Venezuelan agency. Zamora were former shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Inc. are business entities that are directly or indirectly controlled by the individual defendants. Several Venezuelan banks were forced to seek 3 financial assistance from FOGADE. Was one such bank. The individual defendants were minority shareholders and controlling board members of Bancor. Was owned by Corpofin. The individual defendants were also minority shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Upon a finding that Corpofin was related to Bancor and that Corpofin had very large unguaranteed debts with Bancor. Who is responsible for marshaling the corporation's assets for the benefit of creditors. Those documents were dated May 9. The corporate structure was as follows: Corpofin. There is evidence that the May 9. 1994 transactions did not actually occur on that date but that the documents were instead backdated. Whether they were backdated or not does not enter into our decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/033275P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lippman was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Lippman argues that the district court should have given two jury instructions he requested and that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. They were denied entry. United States customs agents suspected that the two were drunk or under the influence of some other substance. A 9mm KELTEC pistol was found under the front passenger seat where Lippman was sitting. A .410 gauge revolver was discovered in a green duffle bag behind that seat. Johannesen told the agents that the firearms were his and later produced receipts showing that he had purchased them. After the firearms were discovered. Lippman and Johannesen were arrested for carrying loaded firearms in a vehicle and transported to the Mountrail County jail. Lippman was released from jail the next day after pleading guilty to a state charge of possession of a loaded .410 gauge Thunder Fire revolver in a motor vehicle. After learning that Lippman had been convicted of possessing a firearm while he was subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66B1D9D4DCF2001288256FB10079C154/$file/0315715.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are hereby amended. The amended opinion and amended dissent are filed concurrently herewith. The Opinion and Dissent are amended as follows: 1. The petitioner must have either referenced specific provisions of the federal constitution . . . or cited to federal case law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310857.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was ultimately unsuccessful. Application for electronic surveillance was supported by an affidavit signed jointly by detectives Linda Sue Burton and William Blake of the county sheriff's office. (2) a pediatrician's opinion that pictures of the child indicated that hair Some of the facts alleged were that: (1) Marlene Aisenberg sounded hysterical in her initial
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B3CEEC82D3324EE882571E7007F8397/$file/9899003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2F7EAB6A6DF348E88256EED006D5274/$file/0235232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Potter is substituted for his predecessor. Willard Johnson are homeless persons in Seattle. They have found it difficult to receive mail. Although some homeless shelters will accept mail on behalf of residents. They will only hold mail for a limited time and mail theft in shelters is a recurring problem. 1994).1 No fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. The regulation has since been changed to require an applicant to have a verifiable point of contact even if he or she provides proper identification or is known to the postmaster or box clerk. 2001). 2 The regulation has since been changed to require the customer seeking a no fee box to have a physical address. No fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. All general delivery mail is sent to one designated facility in Seattle. The mail is held for pickup at a designated post office for thirty days. General delivery service is intended primarily to serve as a temporary means of delivery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR>
We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court set aside the jury's verdict against Jubal Register for using a firearm This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ2MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4609-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/01-12200.opn.html">SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054701p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is before us for the second time. Alleging that Klem violated Curley's constitutional rights by shooting him while both Curley and Klem were responding to a police emergency at the George Washington Bridge. We will affirm. Trooper Klem was on duty and learned that a suspect. A follow up radio transmission informed Klem that Bailey was on the Garden State Parkway and had fired shots at a another police car. This one saying that Bailey was now in a green Toyota Camry he had stolen from a woman at a gas station. Black male
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ2MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4609-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Xerox was dismissed as a defendant in the first of the district court's rulings. The central issue in this appeal is whether the manner in which the defendants instituted a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/01-12200.opn.html">SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962026P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2627.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Irizarry Semidei</SPAN> was on brief. Was beaten by an on duty Puerto Rico Police officer. When she came out to see what was happening. Espada was convicted of criminal assault on Ernid in a Puerto Rico court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956243.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were In particular. Cassandra second Jenkins at and Graham Onieka McKenzie were in eight year old graders Elementary School Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. She instructed No money was Herring took charge of the investigation. the three students to take off their shoes and socks. revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him. Herring ordered the two Cassandra was Herring then girls to take off their dresses. Onieka was wearing only underpants. instructed them to shake their dresses. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022056p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the State Defendants are entitled to constitutional immunity from plaintiff A.W.'s claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The District Court correctly held that the State Defendants have waived any immunity from these claims by the acceptance of the federal financial assistance. We therefore will affirm. The defendants knew or should have known of his medical condition. He was a nineteen year old high school student when he commenced this action. A request was filed in December 1997 with the NJDOE on behalf of A.W. and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The NJDOE is a recipient of financial assistance under the IDEA and other federal programs. The district was ordered to undertake corrective action regarding its reading curricula. He allegedly is making progress in reading. This amended complaint contained ten counts and sought such relief as the entry of a judgment declaring that A.W.'s rights were violated and both compensatory and punitive damages. Were allegedly liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringing his rights under the IDEA and section 504 by conducting an allegedly ineffective complaint investigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B453259F6584AF288256CF00075C9DE/$file/0130151.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
William Dennis Danielson was convicted of illegally selling and transporting in interstate commerce a deer taken without a state issued tag in violation of the Lacey Act. While Danielson was represented by coun 4186 UNITED STATES v. None of this material was produced to Danielson or his counsel during pretrial discovery. The government's interference with Danielson's attorneyclient relationship was neither accidental nor unavoidable. Was rather the result of deliberate and affirmative acts. We therefore hold that if there was prejudice there was a violation of the Sixth Amendment under Weatherford v. Danielson and five co defendants were indicted in Oregon district court for violating the Lacey Act. Assistant United States Attorney (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D03ABDFF7277C99F88256A610081EA0E/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991089.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goldstein alleges that he was suspended and later terminated from Chestnut Ridge based on the substance of his speech. We must first determine whether Chestnut Ridge's decisions to suspend and to terminate him were under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is a state actor. We do so because Chestnut Ridge is: (1) carrying out functions. Chestnut Ridge is a state actor whose actions must comport with the First Amendment.1 However. Which is protected speech. Goldstein cannot establish that his protected speech was a substantial factor in Chestnut Ridge's decisions to take adverse employment actions against him. Goldstein was suspended from the company on March 15. His suspension was upheld by a vote of the Executive Committee. Goldstein was terminated from the company. Holding that Chestnut Ridge is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 See Goldstein v. Summary judgment is appropriate only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2355.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Liz Bostwick was on brief. Was on brief. Seeks to avoid the restrictions imposed by Congress in 1996 on successive petitions for post conviction relief and argues that it is illegal and unconstitutional to deny him the ability to raise an argument about the validity of his conviction that he could have raised properly in 1990. He has not shown that he is actually innocent and no claims of constitutional dimension are raised on these facts. That would allow him to have the merits of his claim reviewed. Our conclusion is that while there are very rare circumstances in which review may exist even if the requirements of 2255 have not been met. James Barrett was convicted of a bank robbery in federal court in 1984. The primary legal questions presented in this case are whether the petition before us is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-4019.htm">97-4019 -- SUTTON V. UTAH STATE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND -- 03/01/1999<BR></A><BR>
An amended complaint was filed in October 1996 which expanded the plaintiff's claims to allege a federal civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case presents the question whether a state prisoner who contends that he is actually innocent. Whose principal witness is coerced by the state into not testifying on his behalf. Roger Smith is currently serving a life sentence with a 30 year minimum term. The claims were procedurally defaulted. All we decide is that. Both the facts and the law are complex. The exception on which he relies is known as the Schlup
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A2CDB2924C8015F88256C5C005698E8/$file/0155930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The mandate is recalled for the limited purpose of correcting the caption. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 11773. We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1228.htm">01-1228 -- QUIGLEY V. ROSENTHAL -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs William and Dorothy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-3387.htm">02-3387 -- U.S. V. GROVES -- 06/03/2004<BR></A><BR>
We hold that the district court's use of the 1996 guideline amendment to determine the scope of the pattern of abuse enhancement was consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause because that aspect of the amendment merely clarified preexisting law.<strong> </strong>However. That it was improper to apply this aspect of the 1996 amendment to Groves' 1994 offense. Groves was indicted on two counts of trafficking in material involving the exploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BF7269BE348D0F788257077004F61F8/$file/0316535.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042849p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/954017.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 9 the reference to § 106 is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A0A2711416534A188256C1300133BF7/$file/0155930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. LI 11779 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is reviewed only for plain error. Hold that the fourth prong of plain error review is not satisfied. Gonzalez Huerta was convicted of committing burglary in California. He was deported to Mexico in 2000. Gonzalez Huerta was arrested in New Mexico for possession of a <hr> controlled substance. Gonzalez Huerta was being held in a New Mexico jail. This offense is punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years. While this case was pending on appeal. That is to say. Gonzalez Huerta argues for the first time that Booker is grounds for remanding his case for resentencing. We note that this argument was not raised below. Ct. at 756 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114621.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We determine whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when an individual was shot in the course of surveillance. Were pursuing an individual who had fled during an investigatory stop that involved plaintiffs appellants Romeo Carr and Cedrick Wymbs.1 The This investigatory stop at approximately 1:30 A.M. at Jack Peters Grocery Store in Monroe. Was the subject of a prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case in which the district court accorded the officers qualified immunity for handcuffing Carr. The handcuffs were removed from Carr. They were told that they were free to go. When the police believed that the store should have been closed. Was occurring. Or was about to occur. The district judge concluded that it was reasonable to believe that Plaintiffs [Carr. Others] possessed weapons and that frisking them was necessary for safety purposes. Defendants had legitimate cause to fear for their safety because they were outnumbered. Plaintiffs were in a high crime area known for drug activity. To look for the individual who fled as well as to watch for drug activity.2 While the officers were observing a pay telephone and the street for evidence of drug activity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/021799p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The present appeal is the latest chapter in the longstanding feud between citizens. The principal issue on appeal is whether the state of New Jersey waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court when it accepted funds disbursed pursuant to the IDEA. We will affirm.3 I. A. BACKGROUND The Statutory Framework of the IDEA The IDEA is a comprehensive scheme of federal legislation designed to meet the special educational needs of children with disabilities. The legislation was enacted in part based on Congress's findings that. 4
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is corrected as follows: On page 24. Medeiros was on brief. Sachse & Endreson was on brief for Common Cause and Common Cause of R.I. With whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief. Cutler & Pickering were on brief. The entity charged with primary responsibility for implementing these laws is the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The reports are to include the name. The 4 Board of Elections is empowered to halt PACs from using names which are misleading or which do not accurately identify a committee's membership and contributor base. Does not apply in the same way to PACs sponsored by labor unions or those which are funded through payroll checkoff plans. 3 the state will match money raised from private 2From and after January 1. Candidates for certain other statewide offices are also eligible to receive public funding. We limit our discussion to gubernatorial candidates. 3The eligibility criteria are set forth in R.I. The election and pledge are irrevocable. Persons seeking state elective office must file formal declarations of candidacy in June of the year in which the election is to be held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turner Murders his Wife and Joyce Brown The facts concerning the two murders largely are undisputed. Turner repeatedly arrived at Joyce's apartment asking to speak to his estranged Irene Hall also went by the nickname
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12527.opn.html">FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992619.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The trustees (the new trustees)1 of the Transportation Communications Interna1 tional Union Staff Retirement Plan (the Plan) and the named representatives of the class2 agreed to the elimination of cost of living 2 adjustment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></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-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the findings and award are not supported by the record. The State of Arkansas and ADE make only one argument: that because Congress does not have the power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass legislation such as the IDEA. The purported abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1403 of that Act is ineffectual and therefore the state and the ADE are not proper parties to the suit. Was amended as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. The stated purpose of the Act is to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them . . . a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected. The chief mechanism for instituting the congressional purpose is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12527.opn.html">FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Guillemard</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/014CFA4EE9890ACB88256D280073FE48/$file/0130151.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is amended as follows: The following two sentences. Are deleted: Any statements so gathered must be excluded from the government's case in chief. Although the government is permitted to use them for impeachment purposes. Provided the statements were voluntary. They are replaced with the following: Any statements so gathered must be excluded from the government's case in chief. Although
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTk0NzRfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-9474_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that a workers' compensation insurer's right to reimbursement under § 624(e) of proceeds of an underinsured motorist policy is governed by the law in effect at the time that the injured worker recovers those proceeds. Circuit Judge: This case is before us for the second time. Holding that its earlier acceptance was improvidently granted. § 624(e) (2003) of proceeds of an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy is governed by the law in effect at the time that the injured worker recovers those proceeds. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this case are fully set forth in our order of certification. Carpenter was injured in a single car accident. Carpenter's coworker Kimberly Webb was driving the car. Which was settled for $25. Which was settled in April of 2000 for $150. Travelers is the real party in interest to the state negligence suit as well. The negligence lawsuit was still pending. A declaration that it was entitled to the value of Carpenter's settlement under her personal UIM policy. An injured employee may both claim workers' compensation benefits and seek compensation from a party other than the employer who is under some legal liability to pay.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196a.htm">98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR>
His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1069.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. Fornia Castillo was indicted. Fornia was sentenced in separate hearings to consecutive terms of 210 months' imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction and 365 months' imprisonment for the four substantive counts (to run concurrently to each other). Fornia argues that the prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the government failed to exercise due diligence either by seeking a superseding indictment to the initial conspiracy charge or by promptly joining both cases for prosecution.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196.htm">98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR>
His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023924p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is currently serving a sentence of twenty to forty years imprisonment. Argues that the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application (Filed: October 14. Who was also a security guard. Mehl was shot as he sat beside Burke while they were both at work. The defense decided instead to contest identity that is. To raise doubt that it was Gibbs who shot George Mehl. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/022382P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is our second decision regarding Angela Johnson. Johnson was residing. Defendant was awaiting trial for aiding and abetting the murder of several individuals who were scheduled to be witnesses in another trial. McNeese was able to elicit information from Ms. Johnson was indicted on six counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(A). (C).1 She was accused of aiding and abetting the killing of three potential witnesses. Who were going to testify against her then boyfriend. A second indictment was returned against Ms. McNeese was not a government agent before September 11. The District Court had held that the offenses alleged in the second indictment were in fact the same. The government's petition explained that the issues respecting the second indictment were not moot. Or may be sentenced to death[.] 3 were not the same. Johnson's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment under the second indictment would not have attached at the time of any of her conversations with Mr. We agree with the government that our first opinion ought to have addressed the same offense issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1910.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. A warrant was obtained to search a single family residence in Bedford. Purporting to establish probable cause to believe that Zayas then or recent ly resided at 16 Holbrook Road and used it as an operational base for cocaine trafficking.1 The warrant application sought autho rization to search for various drug related documents and curren 1The criminal investigation was conducted by federal. The Cocaine Trafficking The Graffam affidavit included information purporting to establish that Zayas was supplying cocaine for distribution at various establishments in nearby Manchester.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1515.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were found guilty of both offenses. Robert Verbickas was found guilty of the substantive deprivation charge. We have consolidated all five cases for disposition on appeal. Eight Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1286p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question of the degree of jury unanimity required by the CCE statute is a difficult one. Other courts of appeals have disagreed with Echeverri's resolution. We must also decide whether the district court's failure to give the proper unanimity instruction was harmless error. These convictions do not themselves show unanimous agreement that the same three violations were sufficiently related to each other to constitute a continuing series. The evidence that the jury must have credited to find Edmonds guilty of the predicate violations unequivocally established that all charged violations were related. No rational jury could unanimously find Edmonds guilty of the predicate offenses without unanimously finding that the offenses were related to each other. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are fully set out in the earlier panel opinion. The organization was based in Los Angeles. ] that in some way he was causing or attempting to cause the distribution of cocaine and heroin as charged in Count 1 of the indictment or in other counts charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4282.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Defendant Weldon Angelos was convicted of multiple drug. Angelos was subsequently arrested on November 15. A presentence investigation report (PSR) was prepared which recommended that Angelos. Including whether the mandatory minimum sentences required under 924(c) were consistent with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Advised law enforcement agents that Angelos was hiding drugs. Davenport advised that she had observed marijuana in the trunk of a black BMW automobile parked in the garage at the Fort Union house (the same BMW that Angelos was observed driving when he sold marijuana to the CI). Money were located in a safe in the basement of the Fort Union house. The proposed search warrant was subsequently signed by a federal judge. The odor seemed to be emanating from approximately eighteen large duffle bags that were in plain view. Were located in plain view in the garage of the Fort Union house and seized by the officers. The district court concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023833p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A group of twenty two police officers sought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Who was not a party to the 1997 suit. Alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the condition of the Department of Public Works garage. Three of the four officers' cases were consolidated for pre trial purposes with the mechanic's case. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city on the three officers' claims but allowed the mechanic's claims to proceed to trial.1 We conclude that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment on the police officers' retaliation claim. Who were not parties to the 1997 suit. Were permitted to keep their jobs The District Court subsequently granted partial summary judgment in favor of the city in the fourth officer's case but that case is not before us. 3 1 despite the city's knowledge that they were not city residents. It is undisputed that. A group of twenty two Scranton police officers filed a complaint alleging that the city's residency ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042161p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were dismissed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as time barred on the face of the complaint. Was also dismissed on the ground that it was duplicative of claims in two related actions then pending before the District Court. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings and in so doing make explicit that the federal discovery rule should be used to determine the date of accrual of the nonfiduciary duty claims alleged here. All newly hired agents were independent contractors providing services to Allstate under a contract known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAzNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0340-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When one of the cases of this consolidated appeal was before us seven years ago. Such forgetfulness is understandable because we know that even Homer nodded.1 We have before us an appeal and several cross appeals from a preliminary injunction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block. Defendant LSC is a 1 A reference to the reappearance in Homer's famous
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/977096p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the District Court granting defendants summary judgment on claims that defendants infringed upon. 1 contend that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' former policy of limiting inmates' access to religious material while they were confined in a special unit for highrisk inmates was unconstitutional both as applied and facially because defendants used
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turrentine was convicted in the Oklahoma courts on four counts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under the custody of Warden Mike Mullin. Background The facts as found by the state court are. The facts of this case are both sad and horrific. Richardson was having an affair with two other men. Knew of these affairs because she was apparently a friend and confidant of Ms. Stevenson were cheating him out of money. Told her that he was at Ms. Richardson's house and that things were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></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-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1291p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-6366.htm">97-6366 -- SIMMS V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 01/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff argues that: (1) his pre 1995 retaliation claims are not time barred and (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his failure to promote claim because he presented sufficient evidence of pretext. 1291 and affirm. <p> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated. Defendant gave it to a white employee whom he thought was less qualified. The job announcement stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEyNDRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1244_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charged along with more than a dozen other individuals in a 26 count indictment that was eventually redacted at trial to seven counts. To be followed by a three year term of supervised release. consolidated for sentencing before Judge Laken's offenses were Pauley. (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions on (a) the RICO conspiracy count. Laken and Black were indicted and tried on charges that they. Those coconspirators were to use part of the illegally gained moneys to fund their bribery payments to the union officials. The Pension Fund Fraud/Kickbacks Trial Laken and Black were tried in a 15 week trial in 2001 2002. Prior to its conclusion he entered into a plea agreement with the government. principal government witness was Jeffrey Pokross. Until he was arrested in 1996 and agreed to cooperate with the government. Pokross was a principal in DMN Capital Investments. The affairs of DMN Capital were overseen by Robert Lino. With Pokross's cooperation many conversations were recorded.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMzktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4139-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxMzktYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4139-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9910.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Then Warden of Central Prison where Carter is incarcerated. We will refer to Respondent as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0449p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants Appellants Kevin Davis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7147a.html">AMY BETTIS, ET AL., V. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN<BR></A><BR>
Perles argued the cause for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs was Thomas F. Carter argued the cause for amicus curiae in support of affirmance.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were Steven H. An ordained Catholic priest who was working as the Director of Catholic Relief Services in Beirut. Was abducted by Hizbollah. Because the nieces and nephews are not members of Fr. Jenco as he was on his way to the office of Catholic Relief Services in West Beirut. Jenco was subjected to inhu mane conditions.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The District Court described his treatment at some length: <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>From the moment he was abducted. Father Jenco <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>was treated little better than a caged animal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>He <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>was chained. Almost constantly blind <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>folded.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>His access to toilet facilities was extremely <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>limited.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/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-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D6A281D7BA34DCE88256EE80057B20B/$file/0236038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Custer was not subjected to double jeopardy when Oregon prosecuted Custer for engaging in sodomy with his stepson between November 1. After Custer was acquitted at a prior trial charging him with engaging in sodomy on June 20. Because Custer was tried for different offenses that occurred at different times. Custer's petition that his counsel was ineffective at trial for abandoning a double jeopardy claim and failing to raise it on appeal fails because Custer did not fairly present the ineffective assistance of counsel claim to the Oregon Supreme Court. Custer was charged by indictment with sodomy in the first degree by the State of Oregon. You will hear from the evidence that this was not the first time he had heard his We refer to the victim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-7147a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Thomas F. With her on the brief were Steven H. An ordained Catholic priest who was working as the Director of Catholic Relief Services in Beirut. Was abducted by Hizbollah. Because the nieces and nephews are not members of Fr. Jenco as he was on his way to the office of Catholic Relief Services in West Beirut. Jenco was subjected to inhu mane conditions. The District Court described his treatment at some length: From the moment he was abducted. Father Jenco was treated little better than a caged animal. He was chained. His access to toilet facilities was extremely limited. He was routinely re quired to urinate in a cup and maintain the urine in his cell. His food and clothing were spare. As was even the most basic medical care. His captors held a gun to his head and told him that he was about to die. Jenco into thinking he was going home. Jenco's imprisonment also caused great suffering among his family members: While Father Jenco was being held prisoner. Or religious holidays were overshadowed or overlooked altogether on ac count of the campaign to free Fr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1233.html">SUPERIOR FIREPLACE V. MAJESTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs asked the state defendants to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0438n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that these statutes are unconstitutional as applied to him because they (1) violate his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a member of the Tennessee State Guard (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1017.html">LORAL FAIRCHILD CORP. V. SONY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were James H. Of counsel on the brief was R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. Of counsel was Steven M. Sony's trial proceeded first.<p> The trial was held in January 1996 on the issues of ownership. The jury was given a detailed set of written instructions with integrated special verdicts for separate factual issues. That Sony failed to prove that any of the claims at issue were invalid.<p> Following the verdict. That infringement of the '674 patent was precluded by prosecution history estoppel3 and that infringement of the '485 patent could not stand under a proper claim interpretation. The case was certified for appeal to this court under Fed. This technology has proven useful in devices where there is a need to store a continuously changing image such as camcorders. Is part of a semiconductor structure further housing a thin layer of nonconductive insulation and a series of gate electrodes on the top surface of the material. When voltage is applied to one of these gate electrodes it creates a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1996 is amended as follows: On page 42. Insert
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1010.htm">01-1010 -- RUIZ V. MCDONNELL -- 08/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
Tender Heart was a private. Which was owned by Charles Gallegos's parents. Renee Gallegos later pleaded guilty to felony child abuse charges in connection with J.R.'s death and is now imprisoned for that crime. <p> Tender Heart. Was licensed as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Michael J. On the brief were James M. Of counsel was Mark B. On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles R. Which is known as the Byrd Amendment. Customs determined that Cathedral and Root were ineligible for those distributions because the two companies had not made timely requests for payment. The National Candle Association filed an antidumping petition alleging that the importation of petroleum wax candles from China was causing and threatening to cause material injury to the domestic candle industry. The questionnaires were marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-1298.wpd.html">GALLEGOS V. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS<BR></A><BR>
Had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 the reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0169p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fourteen students and one teacher were killed at Columbine High School in Littleton. Were responsible for the killing spree. Rhys and Zach had prior criminal records and both were then on juvenile probation. Zach was acquitted of the charge. Rhys Williams and Zach Durbin were fourteen years old and were in the eighth grade at Cambridge Junior High School. Both students had previous criminal problems and were on juvenile probation in April 1999. Zach told her that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the plaintiffs' proposed use of the community centers was a not a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. Hold that the plaintiffs' proposed use is afforded First Amendment protection. Is viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the centers. It is reasonable for the Board to limit use of the community centers to recreational and community enrichment activities. Formal private education is not a use that is consistent with those purposes. The Use Policy states that the purpose of the community centers is to provide a place for: (1) Park and Recreation programs. The Use Policy states that the community centers are available for: (a) recreational uses (birthday parties. (b) any activity that is illegal. Or is in violation of the County's rules and regulations. (c) possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.2 The four Calvert County community centers are: (1) Northeast Community Center in the town of Chesapeake Beach. (4) Southern Community Center in the town of Lusby. 2 After litigation was commenced in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tocci and Glovsky & Associates were on brief. Was on brief. Circuit Judge. is currently serving two concurrent. Naming as respondents the superintendent of the state correctional facility where he is confined. These appeals have their genesis in events that occurred over a quarter century ago. Is available in Commonwealth v. These consecutive sentences were to be served
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4115.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indiana where they had stopped to eat after attending a school soccer game.1 As 1 The facts described in this paragraph are those that gave rise to the Hodgkins' first challenge to the Indiana Curfew law. The statute was revised and the Hodgkins challenged the new statute. The police took Colin and his friends to a curfew sweep processing site where he was given a breathalyser test and escorted to a bathroom where he was required to submit a urine sample to be tested for drugs. Both tests were determined to be negative. It is a curfew violation for a child fifteen (15). 1 (...continued) though the facts that follow are those that gave rise to the initial lawsuit and are not those of the case before us today. They are included in order to give context and background to the current dispute. 4 No. 01 4115 (2) after 11 p.m. on Sunday. A third statute in force at the time of Colin's arrest exempted from application of the curfew statute any child who was: (1) accompanied by the child's parent. These statutes formed what we will call Indiana's prior curfew law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-5387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Kenneth Barrett was convicted of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to several drug trafficking crimes. Barrett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for the first two convictions. State law enforcement officials were aware of his presence and continued to investigate his activities. Received information from a confidential informant (CI) that Barrett was manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine at his residence. Johnson was aware that Barrett routinely carried firearms and had threatened to kill law enforcement officers if they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222b.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2187.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cos and accepting the district court's factual findings because they are not clearly erroneous. Cos's friend lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the search and that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Cos by telephone but was unsuccessful. That they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1202.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032372p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL T. We will reverse and remand for an appropriate due process analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222a.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA2CF494F0682E6488256FD400042F32/$file/0236017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Oloth Insyxiengmay was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of assault in the first degree for an attack on four high school teens who egged his gang's hangout. He now contends that the district court erred in dismissing three of the six claims on the ground that the claims were procedurally barred and denying his Sixth Amendment claim that he and his counsel were improperly excluded from an in camera hearing regarding a confidential informant. The three claims that the district court dismissed on procedural grounds are that the trial court failed to give a manslaughter instruction (claim 1). That a non testifying co defendant's statement inculpating Insyxiengmay should not have been received in evidence (claim 2). That the prosecution's key witness's adverse polygraph examination results should have been admitted (claim 6). Soutthanom Misaengsay1 were associated with the gang. All three were juveniles in 1994. Insyxiengmay was fifteen years old. Misaengsay were outside the snake house during the egging.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0181p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516734.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were subjected at the Jail to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D78AE3B98DC6984C88256EB4005B38F8/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Procedural History The underlying facts of this case are set forth in our previous decision. Claiming that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either the conspiracy or possession count. Appellant's lawyers have referred to appellant alternately as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Hampshire was on brief. The plaintiffs argue that the required disclosures are incriminating because they could lead to future prosecutions or perjury charges. They argue that the disclosures are compelled because completion of the treatment program is a de facto requirement for parole and for maintaining residence in desired prison housing. We affirm.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilson was sentenced to death for that offense. Jacqueline Stephens was found naked. While Wilson and Jacqueline were in her bedroom. Wilson and Jacqueline returned to the bedroom where the girls were. While Jacqueline was showering. Pubic hairs and a dried white substance which appeared to be semen were observed on her body. He also was experiencing rhabdomyolysis. Wilson was charged with murder during the commission of attempted rape. Reported that Wilson was competent to stand trial. Killian also reported that Wilson was sane at the time of the offense. It is governed by the noncapital provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011242.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dep't of Veterans Affairs is corrected to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2721.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spruill moved to suppress that statement contending that it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Spruill's prostitution ring was brought to the attention of the government when a minor in Wisconsin. Stepanek was arrested by local police in a sting operation. Nor was he asked any questions. Spruill was informed that he. After Spruill was advised of his rights. Spruill was fed breakfast and then interviewed for several hours. Spruill was then left alone for several hours. Was assigned to represent him at his initial appearance. The agents informed Spruill of his initial appearance and advised him that he had one last chance to recant his story or otherwise have his version of the events memorialized and given to the prosecuting attorneys. Because the 17 hour deadline was at hand. The agents needed to have Spruill waive his right to an initial appearance in order to continue with the interview. Agent Brusuelas later testified that at that point Spruill was again advised that he had the right to speak with an attorney.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Philip Ray Workman is scheduled to be executed by the State of Tennessee on May 9. Even though the components of the procedure that Workman challenges today have been in existence in the main since 1998. Workman's prospects for success on the merits also are dim. Several state and federal courts have upheld this same three drug protocol (including the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2005). Workman acknowledges that the new procedure is only slightly different from the old procedure. The State has done in reviewing and revising the procedure shows that it is trying to prevent Workman from suffering any pain during his execution. Not that it is trying or willing to allow a procedure that imposes unnecessary and wanton pain. Oliver stopped the defendant as he was exiting. Which also was unsuccessful. A brief review of the history of Tennessee's execution procedures is in order. Quickly anesthetizes the inmate and is sufficient to cause death in the absence of the two additional chemicals in the protocol. Pancuronium bromide is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0071n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congress' efforts to regulate and register firearms possession were unconstitutional. The package was sent by the defendant. The search was conducted after Warin threatened to bring a bomb to an FBI office. Warin was quite adamant. Warin also told agents that he had been placed on probation in 1976 after he was convicted of carrying a machine gun into the federal courthouse in Toledo. A bench trial was held on October 8. A presentence report was prepared. Is a complete defense to his crimes. A. There is one point of the constitutional argument that the defendant and the government share: they both believe that the Second Amendment must be construed to confer individual not collective rights. Warin was decided in 1976 and has continued to hold to its view that the Second Amendment confers only collective rights. This circuit has repeatedly held that the right to bear arms is a collective one. It is quite difficult to hold otherwise without reading the first two clauses out of the text of the amendment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review and one appeal from the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/94-5029.man.html">DELGUIDICE V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Delguidice v. Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAEDD61359E4AF0A88256C8700814318/$file/0115159.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
VENEMAN is substituted for her predecessor DAN GLICKMAN. NORTON is substituted for her predecessor BRUCE BABBITT. Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. It is not preempted by the ESA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BE9F56E8C7E860988256C09005AC61F/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 10912 HALLETT v. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judg1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. 10914 HALLETT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993019.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC4077C9DA2B6E0888256D7500833120/$file/0135954.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether she is entitled to qualified immunity. I. Background Kenneth Haugen and Glen Tamburello were in business together selling drugs and occasionally fixing cars. It was a windy morning. The Riddles complained to Haugen that the spray paint was blowing into their yard. Officer Brosseau had learned that there was a felony no bail warrant out for Haugen's arrest based on drug and other offenses. When she arrived Tamburello and Atwood were in the process of getting Haugen into the pickup. The pickup was parked in the street in front of the driveway. The Honda was parked in the driveway in front of the Jeep. The Jeep was in the driveway facing the Honda and the street and was angled somewhat to the left. 10590 HAUGEN v. Hid in various bushes and other locations around the neighborhood as he tried to watch what was happening at his mother's house. Rounds was at home and was aware of the situation outside because she had been listening to a police scanner. She called police and said that there was a man in her backyard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11E9362566D5ACC788256A99007A9F03/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are hereby amended. The amended opinions are filed simultaneously with this order. Jimenez Recio and Lopez Meza were arrested for their part in transporting a truck load of marijuana and cocaine. Arce agreed to cooperate with the police and contacted other members of the drug conspiracy to have someone sent to retrieve the truck. Both argue the district court should have granted their motion for judgment of acquittal after both the first and second trials under United States v. In which we ruled that a defendant could not be 9613 charged with conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs when the defendant was brought into the drug scheme only after law enforcement authorities had already intervened. Defendant's involvement was prompted by the intervention. Two individuals on their way to Guam to deliver methamphetamine were arrested. Because Cruz was lured into taking over the delivery through a government
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTE0OTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-1499_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. He also challenges the constitutionality of the federal statute requiring states to have a federally mandated scheme for licensing wholesale drug distributors engaged in interstate commerce. He contends that his sentence was impermissibly enhanced based on misinterpretations of the Guidelines and on facts not found by the jury. That he is entitled to be resentenced in any event because the Guidelines. Are unconstitutional. The only FDA approved distributor of Eldepryl in the United States was Somerset Pharmaceuticals. The only FDA approved distributor of Pergonal and Metrodin in the United States was Serono Labs USA. Metrodin distributed in the United States by these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 companies were manufactured and packaged outside the United States in compliance with FDA standards. Of which three are relevant here. The law forbids distribution in interstate commerce of drugs that are misbranded. Prescription drugs are subject to the general federal statutory prohibition of trafficking in counterfeit goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR>
The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D5585DB988C3E61088256E5A00707C09/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are hereby amended. The amended opinions are filed simultaneously with this order. Jimenez Recio and Lopez Meza were arrested for their part in transporting a truck load of marijuana and cocaine. Arce agreed to cooperate with the police and contacted other members of the drug conspiracy to have someone sent to retrieve the truck. Both argue the district court should have granted their motion for judgment of acquittal after both the first and second trials under United States v. In which we ruled that a defendant could not be 9613 charged with conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs when the defendant was brought into the drug scheme only after law enforcement authorities had already intervened. Defendant's involvement was prompted by the intervention. Two individuals on their way to Guam to deliver methamphetamine were arrested. Because Cruz was lured into taking over the delivery through a government
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-1503a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kurtis was on the briefs for appellant. Were on the brief for appellee. Inc. was the winning bidder for ten licenses in the broadband personal communications service C block auction. Mountain Solu tions was required to make a 10% down payment for the licenses. Mountain Solutions paid the first installment but was unable to make timely payment of the second down payment. On appeal Mountain Solutions contends that the Commission was arbitrary and capricious in denying a waiver when it granted waivers to similarly situated entities. Because the Commission did not abuse its broad discretion in denying a waiver and because the claim for injunctive relief is not ripe. Con gress directed the Commission to design its implementing rules to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></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-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0821p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that his present incarceration by the state of Delaware is illegal because his conviction was bottomed on self incriminating statements taken in violation of his constitutional rights. Alston claims that he was interrogated by the authorities in violation of his right to counsel as established by the Sixth Amendment and by Miranda v. He also claims that his waiver of his Miranda right to counsel was coerced. We find that the Sixth Amendment violation was harmless error. That petitioner's invocation of his Miranda right to counsel was anticipatory since it was made outside of the context of custodial interrogation. Was thus ineffective. That his waiver was not coerced. We will therefore affirm. Police officers were investigating a number of robberies that had taken place in and around Wilmington. He was arrested in North Carolina on August 19th. He was brought to Delaware on August 23rd. Was interrogated that same day by Delaware State Police. Alston was taken before a Justice of the Peace on the robbery and conspiracy charges and was committed to Gander Hill prison for pretrial detention.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/94-5029.man.html">DELGUIDICE V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Delguidice v. Delguidice argues that the state trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a psychologist because his counsel was not sufficiently notified in advance of the scope and nature of the examination giving rise to the psychologist's testimony. When Delguidice attacked a department store security guard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412676ord.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. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. /s/ J. This Court has left intact our circuit law on Booker plain error as it is laid out by our panel decision in this case. Which was followed in Duncan and Curtis. Establishes that the use of extra verdict enhancements under the pre Booker mandatory guidelines scheme is Sixth Amendment error that is plain. Shelton adds to our circuit law the rule that while pre Booker sentencing free of any extra verdict enhancement is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. It is statutory error under the remedial part of the Booker decision. The upshot of our four decisions is that the first two prongs of the four prong plain error test are met in all pre Booker sentencing cases.1 To that In United States v. (2) that is plain.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1735p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury found that the search was conducted without a warrant but that Sgt. Larkin had a reasonable belief that he had a warrant so was entitled to qualified immunity. Facts As to those portions of this case that were decided by summary judgment. Which is comprised almost entirely of deposition testimony. The plaintiffs' version of the facts when there are disparities. We also refer to additional facts adduced at the trial which was held on the claim based on the second search. The dispatcher asked for clarification and Gannon repeated two more times that it was Robert Carroll who beat her up. The dispatcher asked if he was still there and Gannon replied
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5050.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1735p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury found that the search was conducted without a warrant but that . Larkin had a reasonable belief that he had a warrant so was entitled to qualified immunity. . I. <p>BACKGROUND <p>A. <p>Facts <p>As to those portions of this case that were decided by summary judgment. Which is comprised almost entirely of deposition testimony. The plaintiffs' version of the facts when there are disparities. We also refer to additional facts adduced at the trial which was held on the claim based on the second search. . The dispatcher asked for clarification and Gannon repeated two more times that it was Robert Carroll who beat her up. The dispatcher asked if he was still there and Gannon replied
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1503a.html">MOUNTAIN SOLUTIONS, LTD., INC. V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Kurtis was on the briefs for appellant.</p> <p>Christopher J. Were on the </p> <p>brief for appellee.</p> <p>Before: Ginsburg. Inc. was </p> <p>the winning bidder for ten licenses in the broadband personal </p> <p>communications service C block auction. Mountain Solu </p> <p>tions was required to make a 10% down payment for the </p> <p>licenses. Mountain Solutions paid the first </p> <p>installment but was unable to make timely payment of the </p> <p>second down payment. On appeal Mountain </p> <p>Solutions contends that the Commission was arbitrary and </p> <p>capricious in denying a waiver when it granted waivers to </p> <p>similarly situated entities. Because the Commission </p> <p>did not abuse its broad discretion in denying a waiver and </p> <p>because the claim for injunctive relief is not ripe. Ensure that smaller businesses ... and businesses </p> <p>owned by members of minority groups and women are given </p> <p>the opportunity to participate in the provision of spectrum </p> <p>based services.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C301AB1B78750E5388256F390079A333/$file/0150082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041918pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who 2 was traveling west on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Wilson concedes that the initial traffic stop was valid. He examined the rental car agreement and noticed that the car should have been returned a month earlier. Told him that he was free to leave. When asked where he was going. Wilson said that he was on his way to Pittsburgh to deliver the CDs he had 3 with him. Overcash then walked toward the two female passengers in Wilson's car and asked them where they were going. The passengers told Overcash that they were on their way to Virginia. Overcash returned to where Wilson was standing at the rear of the car and told Wilson that the women had told him they were going to Virginia. Wilson appeared a bit nervous and told Overcash that he had not told his passengers where they were going but that nothing unusual was going on. Told Overcash that there was nothing illegal in the bag. After he was read his rights again. Wilson was charged under Pennsylvania law with one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and one count of exceeding the maximum speed limit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-4166.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DIAZ (4/17/2001, NO. 99-4166)<BR></A><BR>
The ensuing sentences ranged from a low of 188 months for Lopez to a high of 1145 months for Camacho.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7080a.html">ORANGE VINCENT B. V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/672F9F6630E9FB2B88256EF400820E1A/$file/0316064.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Petitioner Randolph is currently serving a life sentence for his conviction for the murder of 10 year old Lamont Collins on June 24. Were unable to discover sufficient evidence of the father's involvement to justify bringing charges against him. Randall McKinney was interviewed in connection with another homicide. Randolph was arrested and charged with Lamont's murder. Randolph is a developmentally disabled African American with an IQ of 59. The prosecution's theory of the case was that Lamont's father had paid Randolph to murder Lamont. Randolph was tried twice. Randolph moved to set aside the jury panel based on the fact that there were lower percentages of African Americans and Hispanics in the venire than their respective percentages in the general population. Both of whom were jailhouse informants. One informant was Jack Konkle. The other was Ronnie Moore. Moore came to the attention of prosecutors when he gave them a letter asking for leniency and mentioning that he was Randolph's cellmate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's Apprendi claims in his initial § 2255 motion are not jurisdictional and are barred by Teague's nonretroactivity standard. He is procedurally barred from raising them in his initial § 2255 motion. That is. Which were based on the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) applicable to cocaine base offenses involving more than 50 grams. Arguing that his sentence was illegal under Apprendi v. The magistrate judge to whom McCoy's motion was referred recommended that the district court deny McCoy's § 2255 petition on the ground that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CDD7D7662BE97F488256E5A00707D50/$file/9956784.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by adding a footnote 4 after the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 893 of the opinion. Footnote 4 should read as follows: We are aware that California allows federal courts to certify questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. The numbers of all subsequent footnotes are changed accordingly. Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-1285.html">UNITED STATES V. 9844 S. TITAN CT.<BR></A><BR>
There is merit in both arguments. These were adjacent units in an industrial condominium. Philip May was indicted on January 28. He was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Frances May was never arrested or charged with any crime. Contending that the property was connected with the sale and distribution of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) and (a)(7). By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (7) All real property. Which is used. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (1) The May home at 1277 South Memphis in Aurora. Unit 9 was purchased with marital funds but was titled in Philip's name only. (3) The $13. 050 in cash that Philip had with him when he was arrested. (4) The $2. Arguing that he was unable to stop the searches as promised once the police took him from the search sites.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Granting the motion of Defendant to dismiss for lack of Plaintiffs are independent contractors who transport the mail on highways for Defendant. Plaintiffs have fixed rate contracts: the rate that Defendant pays Plaintiffs is determined with reference to Plaintiffs' annual estimates of the cost and amount of fuel that will be needed in transporting the mail. Rendering inaccurate the estimates upon which the contract payments were determined. Then Plaintiffs have the contractual right to request an adjustment in the contract price. Because the fuel prices that Plaintiffs pay are passed on to Defendant in pre contract estimates and potentially in requests that are granted for adjustments during the life of the contracts. These contracts are referred to by Plaintiffs as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/93-6572.html">ESSLINGER V. DAVIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Esslinger v. Is serving a ninety nine year sentence in the Alabama prison system. Esslinger was living temporarily in Marshall's residence.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951885P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rosenstiel and Longley seek a declaration that several provisions of the law are unconstitutional because they allegedly coerce a candidate into participating in Minnesota's public campaign financing program. They further maintain that the provisions are constitutionally infirm The Honorable Richard H. No refund is permitted for a campaign contribution made to a candidate who is not publicly funded. Id. § 290.06(23) (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2000/993072.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. DeHart is currently serving a life sentence at SCI at Greene. Which are Buddhist religious texts. Challenge whether vegetarianism is a central tenet of any recognized Buddhist sect. A brief overview of the process by which Pennsylvania prisons provide meals to inmates is necessary for a proper understanding of DeHart's request. The food for those meals is obtained through bulk purchases. The therapeutic diet consists of the same foods (in different proportions) that are served on the master menu. The therapeutic meals are prepared individually. All inmates who have been prescribed a therapeutic diet eat together in one dining hall after it has been cleared of the other inmates. DeHart proposes that he be served a vegetarian meal when other inmates are served the therapeutic meals. As she 3 is not currently purchased by the Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-16434.opn.html">MCCOY V. UNITED STATES (9/25/2001, NO. 00-16434)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-16434.opn.html">MCCOY V. UNITED STATES (9/25/2001, NO. 00-16434)<BR></A><BR>
We hold that McCoy's <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/93-6572.html">ESSLINGER V. DAVIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Esslinger v. Is serving a ninety nine year sentence in the Alabama prison system. Esslinger was living temporarily in Marshall's residence.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FADCFEB6A80E352688256C3E005866EC/$file/0115159.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
VENEMAN is substituted for her predecessor DAN GLICKMAN. NORTON is substituted for her predecessor BRUCE BABBITT. The action is a challenge to Proposition 4. Five different groups of parties are involved in this litigation. The state parties and sponsors appeal the district court's summary judgment granting declaratory relief to the Audubon plaintiffs on the ground that relevant portions of Proposition 4 are preempted by the federal Endangered Species Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Brendan Allen Shaw (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0074p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Deputy Michael Thompson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981742.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I George Mason University (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053665p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To determine whether Hercules' amendment was valid. That Hercules' amendment was timely and valid. This payment is the present value equivalent of 51% of the retiree's expected lifetime monthly pension benefits. The present value amount is calculated using the federally prescribed mortality table and a specified interest rate. It was established in 1913 and uses the calendar year as its plan year. The present value amount is calculated using the interest rate on 30 year Treasury securities. A higher interest rate results in a lower present value This statement of the facts is contested by the parties. Hercules claims that the plan was amended in October 2001. Argues that it was amended as of January 28. Hercules' Board of Directors appears to have confirmed the resolution in January 2002. The difference in dates is immaterial to our conclusion in this case. After the amendment) Stepnowski's lumpsum payment was lower than it would have been had Hercules kept the PBGC rate.4 In February 2002. Stepnowski then filed a petition in the United States Tax Court for a declaratory judgment that the Hercules plan was not qualified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0431n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant and his company were primarily engaged in commercial construction and by the 1970s had begun working on projects in the Middle East. Jr (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D53D4D521AC3E2F88256B0A0078DF83/$file/9956784.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by adding a footnote 4 after the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 893 of the opinion. Footnote 4 should read as follows: We are aware that California allows federal courts to certify questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. The numbers of all subsequent footnotes are changed accordingly. Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310513.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Florida prisoner on death row. Its history is quite complicated. Who was married to Charles von Maxcy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1040.htm">00-1040 -- WELLS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR>
The East Steps
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts are as follows. Captain Davison actively and publicly opposed the Plan and asserts that she repeatedly was denied promotion to the position of Arson Investigator in retaliation for her outspoken and public opposition. Kathy and [her son] were at a neighborhood meeting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/93-2225.wpd.html">RIDDLE V. TREVINO<BR></A><BR>
Who are convicted sex offenders and inmates in the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility at Las Cruces. Only six of the twenty one plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. They averred that each of them as convicted sex offenders have been denied adequate treatment for their mental disorders related to their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/18AB4763EE2A16D888256F4D00672F52/$file/0355072.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Rawlinson *Petitioner is now being held at Calipatria State Prison. Warden Silvia Garcia is substituted as the proper Respondent Appellant. Circuit Judge: We reverse the district court's grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus because the California Superior Court's decision affirming the petitioner's sentence was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. We are barred from affirming issuance of the writ on the alternative Sixth Amendment grounds asserted by the petitioner in his cross appeal because he was not granted a certificate of appealability as to those issues. The State alleged that Rios was eligible for sentence enhancement under California's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0NDgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5448-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner argues that (1) he is being incarcerated in violation of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination. Circuit Judge: It has been said that a civil contemnor who is incarcerated to compel compliance with a court order holds the key to his prison cell: Where defiance leads to the contemnor's In this case. Compliance is his salvation. petitioner appellant Martin A. At which the district court permitted Armstrong to either produce the missing records and assets or demonstrate that he is incapable of doing so. Armstrong was arrested on a complaint charging him with securities fraud. The investments were made on the understanding that Armstrong would invest in United States securities on behalf of the Japanese investors while hedging against any exchange rate risk inherent in the conversion between yen and dollars. Armstrong schemed with officers of Republic New York Securities Corporation to create fraudulent account statements and account value confirmations that were presented to the Japanese investors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which concludes that Missouri's lethal injection protocol is unconstitutional. I. Michael Anthony Taylor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death in Missouri state court for the abduction. Brutal murder of 15 year old Ann Harrison.1 His convictions and sentence have withstood judicial scrutiny on direct appeal. The timeliness of which was not contested. A 5 gram dose of sodium pentothal (also known as thiopental) was injected to render the inmate unconscious. A 60 milligram dose of pancuronium bromide was administered to paralyze the inmate's muscles. A 240 milliequivalent injection of potassium chloride was injected to stop the heart. Taylor now asserts that Missouri's procedure creates a significant risk that he might suffer the 1 We will not here recount the facts of his crime as they are not relevant to this 2 appeal. wanton infliction of pain because if the first chemical. He will feel the pain of the third chemical. Which indisputably will cause an excruciating burning sensation as it travels through his veins to induce a heart attack.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9518.htm">98-9518 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM. -- 08/18/1999<BR></A><BR>
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.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4OTYtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2896-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruiz is therefore no longer a party to this action. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (William H. Was diagnosed with Hepatitis C. the care of physicians both at Green Haven and at a private clinic. He underwent a liver biopsy to verify the diagnosis and then was treated with both Interferon and Ribavirin. Pabon Under complains that his Hepatitis treatment was conditioned on his 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 submission to a liver biopsy and that the Interferon treatment resulted in serious side effects about which he was not warned. He would have refused treatment. We hold that Pabon is correct that the Fourteenth Amendment's recognized liberty interest in an individual's right to refuse medical treatment carries with it a concomitant right to such information as a reasonable patient would deem necessary to make an informed decision regarding medical treatment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-8012.htm">00-8012 -- U.S. V. SULLIVAN -- 03/20/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/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-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTAwODggdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-0088%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is incarcerated in a New York State prison. Sitting by designation. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the special housing unit confinement was too brief to support a due process claim and that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the Eighth Amendment claim. We conclude that such complete dismissal is not required. Can survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) despite the fact that his period of confinement was less than 101 days. BACKGROUND Many of the relevant facts underlying this appeal are set forth in our prior opinion in this case. 191. 323 F.3d We repeat them here insofar as Because we think it necessary to explain our resolution of this appeal. the appeal is from the district court's dismissal of Ortiz's complaint. We state the facts as they are alleged in the First Amended Complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46C5A41BE06F195888256C21005A0D4D/$file/0116685.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellants in this action are individuals who were denied entrance to a Carson City. Appellants' underlying suit claims that a court policy banning individuals who are wearing such clothing from two floors of the government building violates the First Amendment. Because Appellants have demonstrated both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm. I. Background The relevant facts are not in dispute. On the first floor of the Complex are the marriage license office. Visitors do not have to pass through security to gain access to this floor. On the second floor are two courtrooms for the Justice Court of Carson City Township. On the third floor are two courtrooms for the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Both men are members of The Branded Few motorcycle club. Both were wearing leather motorcycle clothing with patches identifying them as members of the club. They were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. They were ordered to return to the court on March 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/993072.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand 2 the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. DeHart is currently serving a life sentence at SCI at Greene. Which are Buddhist religious texts. Challenge whether vegetarianism is mandated by any recognized Buddhist sect. A brief overview of the inmate meal process at DeHart's institution is necessary to understand his request. The food for those meals is obtained through bulk purchases. The therapeutic diet consists of the same foods (in different proportions) that are served on the master menu. The therapeutic meals are prepared individually. All inmates who have been prescribed a therapeutic diet eat together in one dining hall after it has been cleared of other inmates. DeHart proposes that he be served a vegetarian meal when other inmates are served therapeutic meals. Which is not currently purchased by the Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/870530A1FDABD79688256EE800580191/$file/0315698.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/982803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hopkins was dismissed from his position as director of the Division of Grain Inspection and Warehousing (the Division) of the Missouri Department of Agriculture (the Department) without receiving prior notice or a hearing. 1 We grant Hopkins' motion to supplement the record. 2 Hopkins sought review of his dismissal by filing an appeal with the Agriculture Personnel Review Board (APRB). The purpose of this plan and the APRB was to ensure that Division employees were employed on the basis of job qualifications rather than political affiliations. The Department responded to Hopkins' appeal with a letter explaining that the 1978 plan was void and that the APRB no longer existed. Chapter 36 is a state merit system law that was enacted by the Missouri legislature in 1979. That the 1978 plan remained applicable to those employees who were excepted from the PAB's procedures. Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal and that the proper forum for such an appeal was the APRB. Alleging that he was dismissed in violation of his due process rights and in violation of Missouri's whistleblower statute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The purpose of the first search was to attempt to locate two women. One of whom was reportedly missing and being held against her will by DeQuasie in the residence. While law enforcement officers were executing the first search warrant. DeQuasie moved to suppress the firearm and ammunition on the ground that those items were seized from his residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1328.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 11 delete the second
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0342p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The LPO's first claim is that Ohio's policy mandating strict compliance with election laws violates the Constitution. We do not have jurisdiction to address it. Which is not moot. Is that the combination of two Ohio election regulations the requirement that all political parties nominate their candidates via primary election and the requirement that all minor political parties file a petition with the Secretary 120 days in advance of the primary imposes an unconstitutional burden on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association. As the regulations are not narrowly tailored and do not advance a compelling state interest. States have pushed back the dates of their primary elections to the beginning of the primary election cycle. The issue in this case is whether the move to accommodate the major parties has placed an impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of minor parties. Primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. When the primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3368.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants Clyde Apperson and William Pickard were convicted. Apperson was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Pickard was sentenced to life imprisonment. Skinner told the DEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0406n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Williams's claims and that the ADA does not provide for a cause of action against government officials sued in their individual capacities. McLemore et al. are not entitled to qualified immunity from his claims. That defendants have forfeited their argument that Williams is not entitled to relief under the ADA. Williams was transferred from JMF to the State Prison of Southern Michigan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1515.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Jon E. Et al. were J. Et al. was Kara F. This is a patent case. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/971757P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Historical documents demonstrate that the government was interested in purchasing the land for purposes of harvesting its pine timber. Is guarantied to the The plaintiff Bands in this case have referred to themselves throughout as Bands of Chippewa Indians.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7044a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041918p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who 2 was traveling west on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Wilson concedes that the initial traffic stop was valid. He examined the rental car agreement and noticed that the car should have been returned a month earlier. Told him that he was free to leave. When asked where he was going. Wilson said that he was on his way to Pittsburgh to deliver the CDs he had 3 with him. Overcash then walked toward the two female passengers in Wilson's car and asked them where they were going. The passengers told Overcash that they were on their way to Virginia. Overcash returned to where Wilson was standing at the rear of the car and told Wilson that the women had told him they were going to Virginia. Wilson appeared a bit nervous and told Overcash that he had not told his passengers where they were going but that nothing unusual was going on. Told Overcash that there was nothing illegal in the bag. After he was read his rights again. Wilson was charged under Pennsylvania law with one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and one count of exceeding the maximum speed limit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1786_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7064a.html">SCOTT BENJAMIN W. V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/033394P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Keith Va Lerie (Va Lerie) was charged with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Va Lerie was traveling on a Greyhound bus from Los Angeles. NSP Investigator Alan Eberle (Investigator Eberle) was performing drug interdiction duties at the Greyhound station when Va Lerie's bus stopped for refueling. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FAF8B3C0452210E88256DCE00768509/$file/0235179.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded that the School District is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/985342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Only one of those two exhausted claims is befor e us now.1 In the one claim that we consider. Buhl ar gues that he was denied his constitutional right to conduct his own defense during his criminal trial in state court. W e hold that the trial court's rejection of Buhl's clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to proceed pr o se was improper. We will vacate the district court's ruling and remand for further procedures consistent with this opinion. Buhl's terrorized victim was only able to 1. Buhl is currently an inmate at the U.S. Serving a separate sentence of life imprisonment that is unrelated to. The instant appeal only relates to the aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 30 years incarceration that was imposed by the State of New Jersey. 2 escape when Pennsylvania police stopped her car to investigate its temporary license plate. She was then able to run to the patrol car and tell the officers that she had been kidnaped. He was captured appr oximately one month later. He was successfully prosecuted in federal court as well as the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the various state and federal crimes he had committed in each jurisdiction during his rampage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Novitsky was exiting the vehicle. Novitsky was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and. Novitsky was in fact intoxicated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6159.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Factual background The relevant underlying facts of this case were outlined in detail by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) in addressing Welch's direct appeal: On February 25. She was nude and had leather straps forming a ligature around her neck that also went down her back binding her hands. The Coopers' seven month old child was unharmed and in his crib in his room. The physical and circumstantial evidence at trial supported the State's theory that [Welch] secured entry into the Coopers' home by posing as a Norman Cablevision employee [Welch was fired from his employment with Norman Cablevision prior to the day of the murder. Retained possession of his employee uniform] as there were no signs of forced entry and the Coopers' dogs were found secured in the garage. Cooper kept them when repairpersons were working who needed access to the backyard. The medical examiner testified Cooper's anal swab was positive for sperm and that she had perianal peri postmortem tears which indicated the tears were sustained immediately after or during death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was allowed without a recorded colloquy between Henderson and the judge regarding the dangers of self representation. Henderson was not represented by counsel at a subsequent pretrial hearing where he unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession. He was represented by counsel at his trial. We must first decide whether his habeas 2 petition was time barred under provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9079CBEB951E88C388256E5A00707D56/$file/9917140.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: 1) Page 15760. Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/29F0EFC1D47B642888256B0E000213E9/$file/9917140.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: 1) Page 15760. Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 07/12/2001<BR></A><BR>
(2) whether the failure of an indictment to allege these elements deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction or instead is subject to harmless error review. <p> A majority of this court agrees with the panel opinion's conclusion that the Indian and non Indian statuses of the victim and the defendant are elements of the crime of arson in Indian country under 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFC2DDE7FCAAD18D88256B0300796B1B/$file/9917140.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/952593A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 a comma is inserted at the end of the citation. Line 12 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA27D5D3B4FD961B88256E5A00707D48/$file/9917140.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Dossey Douglas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0450p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Henry Page 2 Because the probation search was founded upon neither reasonable suspicion nor consent. Henry was discharged from a Kentucky prison pursuant to a grant of shock probation. Indicating that he was unemployed. A condition of Henry's probation forbade Henry either to change the residence listed on this report without the approval of his probation officer or to have more than one residence at a time. Henry also was required either to maintain full time employment or to seek employment when unemployed. It is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0113.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His primary contention is that he was deprived of a fair trial because the jury was subjected to improper third party communications and the jury considered prejudicial factual information that was not in evidence. We reverse the decision of the district court only to the extent that the district court denied Fullwood's request for an evidentiary hearing as to whether one of the jurors was improperly influenced by her husband and whether the jury improperly learned that Fullwood had already been sentenced to death for this murder in a previous capital sentencing proceeding. We conclude that the state court's refusal to grant relief was neither contrary to. I. Fullwood and Deidre Waters were romantically involved for three and one half years. Fullwood was the father of Deidre's child Michelle. Deidre went to the home of Michael and Camille Hawks where Deidre was employed as a day care worker. Hawks was still at home. Deidre told defendant's mother that she had taken out the warrant because she was tired of defendant threatening to cut her head off and to cut her heart out.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6EEA93BBA7A22E388256ED8005F99F6/$file/0230326filed.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. * Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Ameline contended that the district court's drug quantity finding was clearly erroneous because it was based on multiple layers of unreliable hearsay evidence. 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) because the facts underlying the calculation of his base offense level and his sentence enhancement were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If Ameline is correct that the Blakely rule applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That the district court violated Ameline's right to have the facts underlying his sentence found beyond a reasonable doubt. Admitted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0264p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the activity that Mezibov claims subjected him to retaliation is not a constitutionally protected activity. Even if it were. A criminal defense attorney of ordinary firmness would not have been chilled from 1 No. 03 3973 Mezibov v. BACKGROUND Mezibov is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Ohio. Allen was the Hamilton County Prosecutor during Dr. Mezibov] is a man who doesn't try too many cases and the verdict shows that. If I were Dr. In consumer law we have a saying let the buyer beware. You ought to have a saying. That's something that in all likelihood we would have entertained. Here's a man that now is going to lose his medical license. Who may very well have been able to work with us and escape prosecution. When my ethics are questioned and when I'm called unethical. You're gonna get it back and you're gonna get it back with both barrels because I have to. They try cases from the testimony that comes from the witness stand and the law that is given from the judge. I have to say had this matter been handled in the normal fashion by a defense lawyer who was interested in his client's best interest rather than having a political show trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B960BC8AD64682AA88256EDD0076E3B3/$file/0230326.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Ameline contended that the district court's drug quantity finding was clearly erroneous because it was based on multiple layers of unreliable hearsay evidence. 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) because the facts underlying the calculation of his base offense level and his sentence enhancement were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If Ameline is correct that the Blakely rule applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That the district court violated Ameline's right to have the facts underlying his sentence found beyond a reasonable doubt. Admitted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></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-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1823.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gil is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oxford. Is not for the squeamish. James Reed is a physician who serves as clinical director at FCI Oxford. Jaime Penaflor is a physician's assistant at that same facility. Gil was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-8056.html">UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO<BR></A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Goldman Antonetti & C˘rdova was on brief. With whom Jos‚ Enrique Otero was on joint brief. Before the Court is plaintiff appellant Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/002203.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
From which the jury that convicted him was chosen. Weaver also challenges other rulings of the District Court based on the Jencks Act and procedures he claims are required in order to sentence him under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The centerpiece of the government's case in chief was its evidence implicating the remaining eleven defendants in the conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine alleged in Count 2. The overall thrust of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony was that Williams and Casado. Their mother Susan Hall Gibson 2 Lenard Brown was Leonard Brown's twin brother. We refer to all defendants by their last names except for the Brown twins and Malcolm and Bernard Shaw. 4 were all friends of Williams from the Miami neighborhoods of Carol City. Baptiste was Casado's close friend and business partner. Charlton Darces was a Port of Miami longshoreman who. The government's case was also replete with evidence. The overt acts cited are as follows: 1. To an individual who was later arrested in St. A portion of which was later seized by authorities. Approximately two and one half kilograms of crack which remained from this crack were seized by law enforcement authorities in West Palm Beach. A portion of which was later seized by law enforcement authorities on March 6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991055.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974750.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the provision is unconstitutional. The district court erred in suppressing Dickerson's voluntary confession on the grounds that it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda. Dickerson was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 371 (West Supp. 1998). Although the district court specifically found that Dickerson's confession was voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless suppressed the confession because it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda.1 In ruling on the admissibility of Dickerson's confession. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0362p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Did not support the Government's claim that Abdi was an escape risk. Argues that the district court was correct in applying the suppression remedy for the warrantless arrest because it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and further. That the Government lacked probable cause to arrest him for a felony as required by the Fourth Amendment.2 Because we find that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for violation of the administrative warrant requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). That Abdi's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by his public warrantless arrest based on probable cause. The essential background facts are as follows. A known and now convicted member of the Al Qaeda organization who was The Government argues that it satisfied the exception to the administrative warrant requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) because Abdi's arrest was based on probable cause and a well founded belief that Abdi presented an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></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-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0872p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032871P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh circuits1 in holding that a remand for resentencing is not required unless the defendant meets his burden to demonstrate plain error prejudice under controlling Supreme Court precedents. That is. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A16D6CDAAE67DB0788256DF70004F0B5/$file/0235374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether the district court correctly concluded that the university officials were entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude there was no error and affirm. 17310 DESYLLAS v. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the university officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Among the records were approximately 25 files on PSU students from 1978 to 1991. Who was a uniformed campus police officer. Where other students were present. He said that the records were not in the newspaper office and that the records were not in a place where he could be taken to retrieve them. He told Fowler and Diman that he realized the records were university property and that he ultimately intended to return the records. Two police officers on bicycles were visible through a window of the student government office. Where they were met by Diman and Fowler. Fowler replied that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/022859p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Degree to Which the Expert Testifying Is Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8. That there are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug19/02-40719-CR2.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We granted en banc review of a divided panel decision that reversed the district court and held that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally extended and that the consensual search was improper. We hold that the state trooper's investigatory procedures in this case were eminently reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. conviction is AFFIRMED. Reginald Brigham and three friends were driving on U.S. Additional drivers were authorized on the rental agreement. Conklin began asking Brigham a series of basic questions about the group's travel 1 The facts are recited in the light most favorable to the Government as prevailing party. 2 plans. Brigham replied that they were coming from Houston. That the rest of the group was on vacation. He had difficulty explaining where the motel was located. Was responding to Conklin's questions with questions of his own. Conklin's five and one half years of experience with the Texas Department of Public Safety led him to believe that Brigham was fabricating answers to his questions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/626A5E633B8887E388256E5C006D2DEC/$file/0255418.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></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-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-3236.wpd.html">HURD V. PITTSBURG STATE UNIV.<BR></A><BR>
Claiming he was discharged in violation of the ADEA. It was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.(1) The district court rejected that contention. While this appeal was pending. II ELEVENTH AMENDMENT We first address PSU's claim that our Eleventh Amendment immunity determination in Hurd II was overruled by Seminole Tribe. A single panel is permitted to reconsider a previous Tenth Circuit decision to the extent the new case law invalidates our previous analysis. It is appropriate for us to review its impact on our previous ruling. The district court concluded that the 1974 ADEA amendments were enacted pursuant to Congress' Fourteenth Amendment authority and that Congress had intended to subject states to suit. We did not specifically state we were adopting the district court's conclusion that Congress had acted pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment authority. Was flawed in several respects. We will consider each of PSU's arguments. A. Intent to Abrogate PSU contends the district court's analysis of Congress' intent to abrogate was flawed for two reasons: the district court looked to the legislative history of the ADEA in violation of Seminole Tribe's express prohibition of such recourse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></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-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gary Bradford Cone was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court for a double murder of an elderly couple and his conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We are asked to decide · Whether Cone was sentenced to death in violation of the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Is whether. Even in cases in which the issue is not raised explicitly. · The second. Is whether the petitioner procedurally defaulted. Bell No. 99 5279 Our answer to the first state law question is yes. It is no. We are authorized to reach the Eighth Amendment issue. We hold that petitioner Cone's death sentence must be vacated because one of the statutory aggravating circumstances the jury relied upon in imposing the death sentence that the murders were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1261.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of which she was the executive director. Arising out of activities No. 01 1261 3 that she was alleged to have committed as Discovery's director. Process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the [Bankruptcy Code].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></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-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002257.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/981010P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One argument Arkansas raised is that the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over the Bradleys' IDEA claim. Judge Moody concluded that the IDEA was a valid exercise of Congress's power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. That the IDEA's provisions abrogating the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity therefore were valid under Seminole Tribe of Florida v. A methodology found to have some success in treating children with autism. An IEP is a written statement that indicates the educational performance level of a child with a disability and the special and mainstream services that will be used to accommodate the child and ensure that the child receives an appropriate education. Judge Eisele agreed with Judge Moody's order in Bradley that the abrogation provision in the IDEA was a valid exercise of Congress's § 5 power. Judge Eisele also determined § 504 was a valid exercise of Congress's § 5 power. The District Court held in abeyance its ruling on further motions and granted a continuance while the appeal was pending.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032898p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal requires us to decide whether this holding is consistent with Robinson v. Is not prejudiced by the delay. We hold that it is. That the petition was untimely. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court denying the petition on that ground. I. Facts and Procedural History Long was found guilty by a jury in Indiana County. His post trial motions were denied and he was sentenced to life in prison. In August 1995 new counsel was appointed under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. It was denied. It was denied as an untimely state post conviction petition. As the merits of Long's claims are not at issue here we will not provide an exhaustive list. Long alleged that: (1) he was deprived of a fair trial in that his motion for severance was denied and in that witnesses were not sequestered. (2) his statement to police was admitted in violation of Miranda v. That any habeas claim that could fairly be said to have been raised at all levels either on direct appeal or in the first state post conviction petition was exhausted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/02-10898.opn.html">VINYARD V. WILSON (11/14/2002, NO. 02-10898)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1456p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government alleged that Stelmokas was born in Moscow. From August 1939 until July 1940 Stelmokas was an officer in the Lithuanian army. The government contended that Stelmokas was a voluntary member and officer of the Schutzmannschaft and advocated. The complaint further alleged that in July 1949 Stelmokas sought a determination from the United States Displaced Persons Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6153_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-4030.htm">02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972302P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The University of Minnesota is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1688.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nolen was entitled to absolute qua sijudicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to 2 No. 01 1688 qualified immunity. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi judicial immunity. It is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Snyder alleged that he was estranged from his wife. That his wife was in sole possession of his non marital property. That he was incarcerated in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. That his assets were at substantial risk because his wife had indicated to Mr. His actions in `whiting out' [the] same was an `impermissible encroachment of judicial authority.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0864p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/02-10898.opn.html">VINYARD V. WILSON (11/14/2002, NO. 02-10898)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2117.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-6071.htm">01-6071 -- WILLINGHAM V. MULLIN -- 06/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
Willingham is not entitled to habeas relief. <p> In 1995. Found that the murder was especially heinous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-4058.htm">00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F473982DAB14C7CA88256BF90059EC91/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5. Is no longer in effect. 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt). 10 Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment. The medical services provisions were in effect until January 5. The date on which the court's final judgment was entered. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-6110.htm">97-6110 -- DILL V. CITY OF EDMOND OKLAHOMA -- 08/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
The claims against Defendants Ben Daves and David Preston were tried before a jury. Vetter and the city were tried before the court. Defendants City of Edmond and Vetter argue that the district court erred by (1) finding that Vetter was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210898.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitionerappellant Ronald Dean Combs was convicted by an Ohio jury of two counts of aggravated murder as well as a specification of an aggravating circumstance as to each count. He was sentenced to death. For reasons that will be explained below. Combs was taken to the hospital and underwent extensive treatment for his gunshot wounds. His right arm was amputated. His left arm was left partly paralyzed. Combs was charged with two counts of aggravated murder. Which is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0714p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thekkedajh Menon appeals from a judgment in a criminal case in which he was convicted by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2[fn1] and 545[fn2] by knowingly and willfully. Is that to obtain a conviction for passing false invoices under § 545. Menon's second argument is that the evidence was insufficient to show that he reimported previously rejected shrimp. A point which ultimately turns on whether a search of Menon's office which exceeded the scope of a search warrant was nonetheless valid under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031725p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the law
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4144_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Application for Annexation Vision is a religious corporation of the State of Illinois currently located in Mundelein. It was founded in 1981. The Village of Long Grove is an 18 square mile community located in Lake County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6083.htm">99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1270902C0E643A788256B2F0001D6EA/$file/0035660.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and his separate. Dissenting opinion is filed herewith. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Most of the facts in this case are disputed and. There may be inconsistent sets of facts that have 17352 been found by different tribunals. Ahmed was terminated from his position with DSHS on January 10. While the administrative appeal was still pending. All of the claims in the complaint were. Judgment on the verdict was entered on June 17. The case was remanded for a new trial. Judgment on that verdict was entered on June 30. It is the appeal from that judgment that is now before this court.1 After the notice of appeal from the second federal trial was filed. The state appeals court affirmed the decision of the state 1 We have. Because that order was not an appealable. Ahmed's petition for review to the state supreme court was denied. This is essentially a whistleblower case Ahmed was terminated for speaking out about improper patient care at Rainier School.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042542p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs were arrested for disorderly conduct on the 2 campus of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. At issue in this First Amendment suit is whether the arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Also at issue is whether resolution of a criminal charge under Pennsylvania's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB3DA18418DD47BB8825722C005BFC4D/$file/0435087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Introduction This set of appeals arises from a single lawsuit that is still ongoing. Retaliatory action for which probable cause exists was not clearly established. Royster is entitled to summary judgment based on the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis. It is clear that probable cause existed for the search and seizure. Royster was engaged in a sting operation at a Get & Go convenience store. Is in the same building as the Get & Go. Royster was talking with the cashier. The juvenile
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-6219.htm">98-6219 -- WORRELL V. HENRY -- 07/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
Worrell's interest in testifying was outweighed by the defendants' interest in administering an effective drug task force. <p> For the reasons set forth below. Because the <u>Pickering</u> balancing test has not been applied to individuals who are neither the plaintiff's employer nor parties to a contract with him. Worrell was employed as a private investigator. They explained that they were exploring a theory of self defense: that the murdered ONBDD agent had attempted to arrest the defendant without displaying any indication of his official authority and that. The defendant could have reasonably believed that the agent was attempting to rob him. <p> Mr. Are [sic] there any type of standard operating procedure. Or basic fundamental course that is taught the officer as to how he is to go about identifying himself under those circumstances? <p> A: Yes. Whoever is going to make the apprehension must have some form of identification to show that they are a law enforcement officer. Or they must be in uniform or they must have a jacket.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.1 Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the displays were unconstitutional. Shortly after the complaint was filed. Some of which were excerpted. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' motion by arguing that the new displays were not similar to the previous displays. Contended that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982696.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGraw and Rodd contend that the district court erred in denying them summary judgment on this claim because they are entitled to qualified immunity. Three of these solicitations are relevant to this case: (1) a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/632DD41FCE1CF2A38825707400583938/$file/0316502.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We accepted jurisdiction and have consolidated them for purposes of decision. 3084.6(c).1 If the issue is not resolved during the informal appeal. The grievant next proceeds to the first formal appeal There are eight situations in which attempted resolution at the informal level is not required. The informal level is not required when a grievance involves
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D1C16933A432326788256E5A00707DA9/$file/0035660.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and his separate. Dissenting opinion is filed herewith. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Most of the facts in this case are disputed and. There may be inconsistent sets of facts that have 17352 been found by different tribunals. Ahmed was terminated from his position with DSHS on January 10. While the administrative appeal was still pending. All of the claims in the complaint were. Judgment on the verdict was entered on June 17. The case was remanded for a new trial. Judgment on that verdict was entered on June 30. It is the appeal from that judgment that is now before this court.1 After the notice of appeal from the second federal trial was filed. The state appeals court affirmed the decision of the state 1 We have. Because that order was not an appealable. Ahmed's petition for review to the state supreme court was denied. This is essentially a whistleblower case Ahmed was terminated for speaking out about improper patient care at Rainier School.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-2078.man.html">HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954445.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogramsized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex. The nine appellants have raised a plethora of issues related to their convictions and sentences. We have carefully considered all of their arguments. We summarily reject all of those arguments that are not mentioned in this opinion. 3 1 and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton. The agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 000 of which were transcribed). The investigators learned that several co conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6213.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sued in his official capacity as the Commissioner of Health (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1400.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allen & Snyder were on brief. Cohen and Goldenberg & Muri were on brief. Retired Rhode Island legislators or their beneficiaries became eligible to receive annual pension benefits that were as much as sixty times greater than the legislators' annual pre retirement salaries. The pensioners whose benefits were thereby reduced brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to foreclose any withholding of benefits. While the suit was pending. The pensioners then continued their suit in order to seek interest on the benefits for the time that they were withheld. I Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The Rhode Island retirement system is a defined benefit plan. The retirement system is administered by a retirement board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Sloviter. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. * (Filed June 6. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-2078.man.html">HUNT V. HAWTHORNE ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunt v. Hunt is a retired Eastern Air Lines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-6129.man.html">SUMMIT MED. ASSOCIATES V. PRYOR (7/15/1999, NO. 98-6129)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue raised in this interlocutory appeal is whether Alabama's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars this suit in federal court against the Governor. Because Appellants have no enforcement authority over those specific provisions. Remand this case with instructions to the district court to dismiss Appellees' challenge to the private civil enforcement provision of the partial birth abortion statute.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Appellees are three corporations that own abortion clinics. If he is married to the woman who underwent the abortion. If the woman is a minor at the time of the procedure. Where the abortion
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.<strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>I</strong></center> <p> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EE48B25DAA0402A88257116000ACBF6/$file/0455036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. 1674 SOSA v. The central question before us is whether DIRECTV is immune from liability under RICO. The signals broadcast from the satellites are electronically scrambled. DIRECTV obtained no information on the uses to which these individuals were putting this equipment. Nor does its satellite technology permit it to determine whether any particular individual is receiving its signal. DIRECTV is prepared to release its claims in return for your agreement to: (1) surrender all illegally modified Access Cards or other satellite signal theft devices in your possession. (2) execute a written statement to the effect that you will not purchase or use illegal signal theft devices to obtain satellite programming in the future. Nor will you have any involvement in the unauthorized reception and use of DIRECTV's satellite television programming. Please be advised that DIRECTV will 1676 SOSA v. Copies of the letters received by the named plaintiffs were lodged with the district court prior to the hearing on DIRECTV's motion to dismiss.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034792A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/942993P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree that a writ of habeas corpus should issue on three independent bases: (1) Driscoll was denied the effective counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because his lawyer allowed the jury to retire with the factually inaccurate impression that the victim's blood was possibly on Driscoll's knife. (2) his trial counsel was also ineffective for failing to impeach a state eyewitness using his prior inconsistent statements. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Driscoll is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Potosi Correctional Center in Mineral Point. Were also charged and separately convicted of capital murder in connection with the stabbing death of Officer Jackson. Roberts was sentenced to death for his role in restraining officer Jackson while he was fatally stabbed. Carr was sentenced to life in prison without consideration of parole for fifty years. The court appointed counsel to assist Driscoll and on October (1) he was denied effective assistance of 22. (2) he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment as a result of multiple trial court errors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1329.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc.</SPAN> were on brief. Gray</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1586p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We will affirm as to the Fourteenth Amendment causes of action. Will reverse and remand for fact finding as to the First Amendment claim and the related state law claim. FACTS Defendant New Jersey Racing Commission is a body created by N.J. Defendant Francesco Zanzuccki is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Defendant Michael Vukcevich is the Deputy Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Latessa was licensed by the United States Trotting Association as an Associate Judge with powers to officiate as a judge at harness horse meets. Latessa was first appointed by the Commission as Presiding Judge at Garden State Park in 1988 and was also appointed to that position at the Meadowlands Race Track (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/297A1A7ADEF7DA1188256BA600804D86/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district 1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. When it became apparent that more time was necessary. The court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. MORGAN 6339 scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. </P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45168809DCD027E488256AB6007A0CD1/$file/9956784.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4BFFA2C848154A8888256FBD005F097C/$file/0255627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richard Moreno and his companion Joe Rodriguez were on their way to a meeting at St. Who was riding in the passenger seat. Deputy Banks entered their names into a computer inside the patrol car and asked the men whether they were on parole. Moreno admitted that he was. Moreno heard one of the deputies tell the other that Rodriguez was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-2221.htm">96-2221 -- ARCHULETA V. LACUESTA -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR>
Should be remanded because removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BFCEF49FA6FE58DE88257015004EF76E/$file/0415017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We reverse the district court's decision and hold that the particular application of Nevada's time limits and tolling provisions in Collier's case was not adequately established prior to his appeal. Standard of Review Federal district court decisions denying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions for procedural default are reviewed de novo. Factual findings underlying the decision are reviewed for clear error. Mixed questions of law and fact involving constitutional issues are reviewed de novo. While McConnell was working with Nevada's Consolidated Narcotics Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045a.htm">99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a professional painter who was severely injured after falling from an elevated work platform. I. BACKGROUND Terry Minter was hired to work as a painter at a construction site in Tulsa. He was using a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6329.htm">96-6329 -- DUVALL V. REYNOLDS -- 12/10/1997<BR></A><BR>
Duvall was in trouble. He stated that she was angry with him because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled. He replied that their son was at his grandmother's home. Duvall was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person and (2) that the murder was especially heinous. Duvall was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims and dismissed his petition. Or cruel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of Cochran's complaint is that while an inmate at two penal institutions of the State. The Court was very specific in limiting its holding to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Indicating that an individual analysis would have to be performed for subsequent The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because Cochran brought a claim under the ADA. We are persuaded that a different scenario is present here. To determine when Eleventh Amendment Immunity will permit suits for money damages against state agencies. Lane is not applicable to these facts. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Is a legally blind inmate currently incarcerated in South Woods in Bridgeton. Cochran is serving a life sentence for murder and robbery. Cochran was transferred from the Florida prison system to the custody of the New Jersey DOC. He was suffering from end stage glaucoma and was legally blind. Cochran was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012030.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is located southeast of Pittsburgh. The District Court held that the case was mooted by an amendment of the original zoning ordinance and therefore granted the Township's motion for summary judgement on all claims. Because we hold that this case is not moot. An antenna is located in the approximate center of a cell and the antenna transmits wireless signals to and from cell phone users in that cell. It is typically mounted on a tower or other tall structure. The perimeter of each cell is shaped by the topography surrounding the antenna. Where the terrain is flat. A cell is circular and several miles in diameter. Because each wireless company is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1100a.html">GREG RUGGIERO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Perry argued the cause for petitioner Greg Ruggiero.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1100a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Barbara J. With him on the briefs were Robert S. We hold that the provision and its implementing regulation fail to meet this standard and are therefore unconstitutional. The Commission concluded that the Class D stations were impeding expansion of more efficient high power operations. Opting to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BE8075CFC021E4F88256E5A00707C84/$file/9956784.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043489p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the order of the District Court and remand for further findings consistent with this opinion. 3 I. No charges were filed against him. Three additional plots of marijuana plants growing in a field behind the house were also discovered and destroyed during the raid. Officer Howell received the first of two anonymous calls relating to the property previously surveilled and indicating that its residents were growing marijuana on the premises. The unidentified female caller advised Officer Howell that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Louis R. Graham J. 3 Jenkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Global Rights in support of appellants in Nos. 05 5062. With him on the briefs were Barbara J. Land were on the brief of amicus curiae Omar Deghayes in support of the detainees. Morton Sklar was on the brief of amicus curiae The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees. David Overlock Stewart was on the brief of amici curiae Legal and Historical Scholars in support of the detainees. Hafetz was on the brief of amici curiae British and American Habeas Scholars in support of the detainees. Were on 4 the brief for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender Habeas Corpus Counsel in support of the detainees. Meister were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the detainees. With him on the briefs were Paul D. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of the United States of America.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1618.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Comey Boyd & Luskin were on brief. Were on brief. Slomovits was accepting millions of dollars in cash each week from Duvan Arboleda. The transactions were accomplished without documentation. The bills were usually in small denominations. These purchases were made at various banks by underlings (e.g. The money received in New York was transported to Rhode Island by armored car and then deposited in an account standing in the name of a controlled corporation. See 31 U.S.C.A. 5324 (West Supp. 1995) is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The background of this case is thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact of the district court. CFE's basic complaint is that MHSAA discriminates against female high school athletes by scheduling girls' sports to play in disadvantageous. Our task is now to reevaluate this claim in light of the Supreme Court's GVR. CFE responds by contending that Rancho Palos Verdes does not apply to the present case and that CFE is therefore entitled to prevail under both Title IX and § 1983. Standard of review Constitutional and statutory interpretation questions are issues of law. Or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider. A GVR order is . . . potentially appropriate. 167 (1996) (holding that a GVR is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1521p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314400.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-8397.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-8397.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1760.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief. Knight LLP</U> were on brief. It is brought by a group of residents of Belmont. We affirm.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-7085a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1634.html">CREO PRODUCTS, INC V. PRESSTEK<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 18 the comma after the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5034.html">SELDOVIA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991893.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5363a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Daniel J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Trudeau alleges that the press release is itself false and misleading. I Plaintiff Trudeau is a best selling author and producer of radio and television information commercials (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0ODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6480-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Do not constitutionally have the complete freedom of action enjoyed by a private employer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F52DCB6AA7D3E1088257217007B29C9/$file/0515687.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants thereafter filed for bankruptcy and an automatic stay was issued. After the bankruptcy automatic stay was lifted. Holding that her claims were time barred and that she was not entitled to equitable tolling because her first action had been dismissed as a result of her own inaction. The following paragraphs are inserted immediately following I. Although the parties have not raised the issue. O'Donnell's first complaint was void as being entered in violation of the automatic stay. Although
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0359p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * The dismissed complaint was styled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2389.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This appeal is the second appearance here of a case challenging a state law regulating speech and activities within a buffer zone around health care facilities which perform abortions. Women who are regular pro life
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Continuation of footnote 6 a paragraph is added which states: Our conclusion that there is but one offense of common law murder in North Carolina is also fatal to Hartman's claim that subject matter jurisdiction is not established unless all the elements of a crime are alleged in the charging document. Hartman primarily contends that his constitutional right to adequate notice of the charges against him was violated by the use of a short form indictment.2 Because at least one judge of the panel has concluded that Hartman
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-5088.htm">98-5088 -- U.S. V. LE -- 03/31/1999<BR></A><BR>
This warrant was executed in the evening hours of July 2. Federal agents seized the explosives and heavy weapons discovered earlier in the day. <p> At about the same time that the TPD officers were executing the state warrant. A combined force of TPD officers and ATF agents stopped Le as he was driving his truck through Tulsa. The purpose of this stop was to execute a search warrant. Le was arrested and taken into custody. The samples were taken. <p> Also during the day on July 2. Who came to the business and examined the weaponry to determine if the items were stolen military equipment. The Defense agent determined that many of the weapons were indeed stolen. No weaponry was seized at the business on July 2. <p> On August 4. Le was charged with the following offenses: (1) possession of a stolen firearm. The search was impermissible because the affidavit did not state the last time that contraband was observed at Le's residence. (3) the warrant itself was not sufficiently particular. It was not particular enough.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414776.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That those prior convictions were felonies involving controlled substances) or the fact that Gibson was at least 18 years old at the time he committed the offense in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/99-1465.htm">99-1465 -- ALLISON V. BANK ONE - DENVER -- 05/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
The district court dismissed the RICO and COCCA claims prior to trial and they are not the subject of these appeals. Before us are the parties' appeals and cross appeals arising from the district court's rulings. Including its post judgment decisions regarding costs.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045.htm">99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Colorado argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Colorado is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The special license plates are supplied to the disabled at the same cost as standard license plates. <em>See id.</em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3496D4587B80681E88256BC0007BB5AC/$file/9917338.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A number of the sheriff's deputies who were on duty at the Washoe County jail the night Gibson died. That summary judgment was improperly granted on the question whether the County was deliberately indifferent to Gibson's mental illness while he was in custody at the county jail. Review is de novo. To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Was in the regular care of a psychiatrist. Gibson was entering a manic phase. He was pacing agitatedly through his home. Gibson where he was going. The psychiatrist on call at West Hills in an effort to find Gibson and have him taken to the hospital. Four dispatches were broadcast over the Reno1 and Washoe County police frequencies: On February 1 at 9:33 PM. A notice was broadcast. The broadcast stated that Gibson was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></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-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI4MDVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2805_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Jackson was convicted in New York Supreme Court. The District Court granted habeas relief on both offenses based on two separate claims: (1) Jackson was deprived of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by the trial court's refusal to allow the jury to consider a justification defense. (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when trial counsel cited inapposite case law to the court. 1997 2 Jackson was the superintendent of an apartment building at 110 Grove Street in Brooklyn. A group of family members and friends was drinking and playing cards in apartment 1B. Who was joined that evening by her sister in law. Who was Bernadette's brother and Mirna's husband. That Natalie Hall and her friends were inside apartment 2E. Drummond was a friend of Jackson's who lived in the building. There is some dispute over precisely what happened next. He later testified that he The medical examiner later determined that Brown's blood alcohol content was 0.21%.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR>
All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0986p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The court is divided on the disposition of various issues and on certain issues there are majorities consisting of each of the three possible combination of judges. On other issues the court is unanimous. In this opinion I will set forth the ultimate conclusions reached and also will set forth the majority view on some points and my own view on other points. Judges Scirica and Lewis are filing separate opinions. As a matter of convenience I largely will deliver this opinion in the first person. Judge Scirica and I conclude that all the individual defendants are immune because their actions on May 13. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants Wilson Goode. Will reverse the denial of summary judgment on the section 1983 claims to defendants Brooks. Judges Scirica and Lewis conclude that the City of Philadelphia is not entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims and accordingly we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment to the city on those claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc4NzVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7875_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-6439.htm">97-6439 -- MILLER V. CHAMPION -- 11/24/1998<BR></A><BR>
He was charged in Oklahoma state court with first degree murder. Miller pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second degree murder and was sentenced to 38 years imprisonment. Miller alleged that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had failed to inform him that one of the elements of second degree murder under Oklahoma law is that a defendant act with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR>
All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC027F2EF1891DED882570D7007CD1D9/$file/0356766.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitions filed by both parties for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Carty was sen 16382 CARTY v. Eight years later a day before Carty was to be released on parole the San Diego County District Attorney filed a civil commitment petition against Carty pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-6243.opa.html">JENKINS V. TALLADEGA CITY BD. OF ED.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Cassandra Jenkins and Onieka McKenzie were eight year old second graders at Graham Elementary School in Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. No money was revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him.<p> From Nelson's office. Cassandra was wearing a slip. Onieka was wearing only underpants. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing. After nothing was found.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-6243.opa.html">JENKINS V. TALLADEGA CITY BD. OF ED.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Cassandra Jenkins and Onieka McKenzie were eight year old second graders at Graham Elementary School in Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. No money was revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him.<p> From Nelson's office. Cassandra was wearing a slip. Onieka was wearing only underpants. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing. After nothing was found.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Invest Almaz also contends that the jury was not properly instructed on a claim that. Was formed for the purpose of investing the pensions and savings of the parent company's employees. Invest Almaz's intent was to build housing for the parent company's retired employees and also to sell OSB for needed hard currency in the export market. Invest Almaz came to the conclusion that it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment from an existing plant in North America and have it transported back to Russia. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0030p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That McFarland received an evidentiary hearing to which she was not entitled. McFarland was charged in Michigan state court with eleven counts of possession or possession with intent to deliver various drugs. Some of the pills were found in a closet in the southeast bedroom. Yukins No. 01 1360 prescription paraphernalia were found in a file cabinet in the room. Some pills and packets of powder were found in a safe in the room. A sifter that was of the type used in the cocaine trade and that had residue on it. Th |
