Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Your query terrorism returned 842 results.

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

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
We find that the district court erred when it imposed 2 Nos. 03 3297 & 03 3412 an enhancement for an offense involving fifty or more victims pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) because there is insufficient evidence in the record that Arnaout caused an actual loss to at least 50 people. We find that a defendant need not have been convicted of a federal crime of terrorism as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) for the district court to consider whether to apply the terrorism sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. Arnaout was charged in an eight count Second Superseding Indictment. He was responsible for and directed BIF's operations in the United States. He solicited donations from the public by purporting that BIF and its related overseas offices were part of a charitable organization involved solely in humanitarian work for the benefit of civilian populations. Federal and state governments that a material portion of the donations received by BIF were being used to support soldiers overseas.

OPINION/ORDER
The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is

OPINION/ORDER
The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Other than those that may have resulted from the destruction of its ticket office in the World Trade Center in New York. Principally because those other losses were not a direct result of physical damage to either the insured's property at its

OPINION/ORDER
This evidence suggested that Appellee was a member of a terrorist organization. Was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had made threats against Attorney General Janet Reno. Were not 3 substantially justified. The EAJA provides that

OPINION/ORDER
Let the group know the coast was clear. At one point while Thomas Dowell and Cleaver were inside the building. Radioed them that there was someone walking through the building's parking lot. After that person was gone. Police believed Sherman was involved. Federal agents would contact Sherman at home or when he was driving his cab and ask him about the fire. We will address Cleaver's appeal. Is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States. Is punishable as a principal. Except that if the offense is committed only by threats of force. Means threats of bodily harm to the officer or employee of the United States or to a member of his family. (4) We grant defense counsel Nancy Holton's request to withdraw.

that they were getting close to solving the case and would be charging him with the crime. Dowell now asserts that the district court deprived him of due process when it did not conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Sherman's confession to police was voluntary.

OPINION/ORDER
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (

OPINION/ORDER
Is reasonable. The precise 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 issue before us is whether one such search regime. Each plaintiff either submitted to a baggage search and entered the subway or refused the search and consequently was required to exit the subway system. The District Court erred in balancing the relevant factors because (a) the searches are intrusive. (b) there is no immediate terrorist threat. (c) the City's evidence fails as a 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 matter of law to establish that the Program is effective. We hold that preventing a terrorist attack on the subway is a

OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the government had failed to demonstrate that the defendant's crime transcended national boundaries and that such was required before it could consider the requested departure.

OPINION/ORDER
(1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. In violation of 18 U.S.C. 1512.(5) Cleaver also asserts that he is entitled to resentencing under United States v. Cleaver was one of the main suspects. Except that if the offense is committed only by threats of force. U.S.C. 1622 provides that

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was John Kenneth Zwerling. With him on the brief was Peter D. The government concluded that the organization was a branch office of a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and invoked its authority under anti terrorism laws to block IARA USA assets. IARA USA also argues that it should have been permitted to amend its complaint to request access to its blocked funds for payment of attorneys' fees. Because we conclude that the designation was supported by the record and was not contrary to law. The designation was based on OFAC's conclusion that IARA

OPINION/ORDER
Matthew Hale was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of obstructing justice. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. OEOE 2 No. 05 1922 entered against his white supremacist organization by United States District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow and his involvement in a plot to have the judge murdered. Hale was sentenced to a total of 480 months' imprisonment. I. Hale was the

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a

OPINION/ORDER
Is the proper respondent pursuant to Fed. The Government's ability to detain an alien pursuant to § 1231(a)(6) is not unlimited. The Court further held that the statute did not authorize extended detention of an alien subject to an order of removal if it is not reasonably foreseeable that the removal will be accomplished. Petitioner Tuan Thai's post removal period detention has exceeded sixteen months despite the fact that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. The Government contends that Thai's continued detention is nonetheless permissible because the Zadvydas ruling recognized an exception that allows for the indefinite detention of an alien under special circumstances. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner Thai is a native and citizen of Vietnam. The validity of that removal order is not at issue here. Vietnamese officials have not responded. The Government does not dispute that Thai's removal is not reasonably foreseeable at this point. The District Court noted that the Government

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Page 22. Byrnes & Morton were on brief for appellant Martin Quigley. Rosanna Cavallaro were on brief for appellant Richard Clark Johnson. Hamilton & Dahmen was on brief for appellant Christina Leigh Reid. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the Second Circuit. Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for their roles in terrorist activities directed against the British presence in Northern Ireland. Background The facts as the jury could have found them are as follows. Was engaged in the research and development of explosives for export to the Republic of Ireland and use by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (the PIRA) in its attacks against British civilian and military targets there and elsewhere. Johnson is a highly educated and trained electrical engineer. Were issued along with those for appellants. Maguire is an Irish national who is not present in the United States. Was not present at trial. Neither is a party to this appeal. 4 him in the basement of his parents' home in Harwich.

OPINION/ORDER
After these vulnerability assessments have been made. This assessment was aimed at

OPINION/ORDER
Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many

OPINION/ORDER
2007 is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6405. The Ministry argues that the Cubic judgment is not a blocked asset under TRIA because Executive Order 12. The reasoning in those cases is inapplicable here. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (

OPINION/ORDER
O:\Slip\WP\2006\05 7048 Simpson12a.odl.wpd

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The instant case is an appeal by James Vincent Wells. Who was convicted of all twelve counts of an indictment in relation to mail fraud. Comptroller warrants are fraudulent financial instruments that. Virtually none of the warrants were being accepted.2 Persons attending a Freemen conference could acquire as many as five comptroller warrants for $100. Each was issued jointly to Wells and a third party payee. Schweitzer's usual practice was to send Wells comptroller warrants whose face values were twice the amount requested. 1 Evidence was introduced tending to show that some of the banks had difficulty determining that the documents were fraudulent. 2 There was evidence that two of the warrants were accepted by banks. 3 Soon after Wells returned to North Carolina. Wells sent cover letters along with the warrants to notify creditors that the warrants were intended to satisfy debts owed to them. Any additional funds were to be refunded to Wells. Liability was to extend for 99 years. Wells was notified by mail of a rejection.

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (

AMY BETTIS, ET AL., V. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Perles argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Thomas F. Carter argued the cause for amicus curiae in support of affirmance. 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. Almost constantly blind folded. His access to toilet facilities was extremely limited.

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Vo asserts that the crime with which he was charged was a political offense and thus not a valid basis for extradition under the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand. Because we find that the crime with which Vo was charged is not protected by the political offense exception and that Vo's arguments as to the

OPINION/ORDER
The language of §§ 2702 and 2707 identifies unambiguously who is subject to liability. The legislative history and case law is in accord with these sections' clear directive. I DirecTV is a provider of satellite digital television. Issuing what is referred to in Canada as an Anton Piller Order. Gray was enjoined from operating two web sites: www.dsschat.com and www.piratesden.com. DirecTV was also able to enjoin Gray from a number of other activities relating to the accessing or facilitating of piracy technology or information. 9036 FREEMAN v. The order provided that evidence seized from Gray was to be held in the

OPINION/ORDER
Customs officials at Dulles Airport stopped a shipment of eighty three carpets that was en route to a company operated by Hassanzadeh.

MICHAEL PRICE V. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez

OPINION/ORDER
Prevett and the

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. I. Background The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) authorizes the Secretary of State to designate an entity as a FTO if the Secretary finds: (A) the organization is a foreign organization. As

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief was Stuart H. Two central questions have been raised on appeal: first. Whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that are legally sufficient to revoke Libya's immunity under the FSIA. That plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for hostage taking adequate to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish subject matter jurisdiction. We hold further that the allegations supporting plaintiffs' torture claim are not adequate to bring the case within the statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immuntiy. The complaint in its present form is simply too conclusory to satisfy s 1605(a)(7). Plaintiffs have at least intimated that they can allege facts that might state a proper claim for torture under the FSIA. We will remand the case to allow plaintiffs to attempt to amend their complaint in an effort to satisfy the statute's rigorous definition of torture. We note that there is a question as to whether the complaint states a claim for relief upon which plaintiffs can recover.

98-6357 -- WILLIAMS V. BOONE -- 01/28/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Bobby Joe Williams. Williams also contends his counsel failed to inform the trial court of a separate case in which his competency was at issue.

In rejecting these contentions. The magistrate judge was unpersuaded by Mr. Shaffer also admitted that

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Paul D. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of appellants. 2 Jay Alan Sekulow and James M. Jr. were on the brief of amicus curiae The American Center for Law & Justice supporting appellants. With them on the briefs were Benjamin S. Vladeck were on the brief of amici curiae of fifteen law professors in support of appellee. Berz was on the brief for amici curiae Louise Doswald Beck. Paust was on the brief for amicus curiae International Law and National Security Law Professors in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amici curiae Jenny S. Moltenbrey was on the brief for amici curiae 305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians in support of appellee. Thompson was on the brief for amici curiae Eleven Legal Scholars in support of appellee. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman Al Bahlul in support of appellee. 3 Kurt J. Carter were on the brief for amici curiae Military Law Practitioners and Academicians Kevin J.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: These are appeals from judgments following two separate phases of a jury trial to adjudicate whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11. The parties are entities with varying property interests in the WTC (the

OPINION/ORDER
Gale Nettles was charged with attempting to destroy the federal courthouse in Chicago. He was convicted on all charges except for attempting to provide material OE Boyce F. When Gale Nettles was sentenced to a twenty four month prison sentence after pleading guilty to the crime of counterfeiting United States currency. A former rancher and auctioneer who was serving time for racketeering and fraud convictions. Nettles remarked that a larger bomb

OPINION/ORDER
Are judgment creditors of the Islamic Republic of Iran (

OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are legal and social service organizations and two individuals who seek to provide

OPINION/ORDER
Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. Wired money from the

98-6366 -- QUATE V. HARGETT -- 05/10/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant David Lee Quate. Quate's deadline for filing his petition was April 23. Because an appeal to the Supreme Court is unnecessary in exhausting state post conviction remedies for the purposes of

OPINION/ORDER
Fawaz Mohammed Damrah was found guilty of unlawfully obtaining citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1425 by making false statements in a citizenship application and interview. Damrah was sentenced to two months of incarceration. A naturalization interview was conducted on December 17. He was naturalized on April 24. Damrah was involved in establishing the New York office of Afghan Refugee Services. Damrah was an initial director of ARS and traveled around the United States with the leader of ARS raising money for the organization. Damrah's 1990 departure from the Al Farooq Mosque resulted from a dispute over the use of contributions to ARS after the Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan in February 1989. Damrah was also involved with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief. Holt was on brief. Emblematic of unsettled political conditions that have plagued the Middle East for many years. On the ground that they were entitled to a binding determination of sovereign immunity (including appellate review of any unfavorable decision) before being forced to bear the burdens of litigation.

OPINION/ORDER
Commercial truckers who cross the many bridges that connect New Jersey and Pennsylvania have turned to the federal courts in this action to complain that the tolls being charged on certain of those bridges are excessive. We must decide at the threshold whether the truckers have a private right of action under § 508 to maintain this suit. The District Court held that the truckers have neither an express nor an implied right of action. The

OPINION/ORDER
Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).2 1 The MEK is also known as the People's Mojahedin Organization for Iraq. The MEK was founded in the 1960s as an Iranian Marxist group seeking to overthrow the regime then ruling Iran. After the Iranian regime fell and was replaced by a clerical. If the indictment is correct. We take it as true that the defendants knew that they were furnishing assistance to a designated

OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Respondent's request for clarification is GRANTED. 2004 is clarified as follows: At slip op. page 8417. ASHCROFT ing and for full relief under CAT are GRANTED. Her petition for asylum is REMANDED for the exercise of discretion. We hold that the Board's denial of withholding and asylum for Rajwinder Kaur cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe that she is a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators.

OPINION/ORDER
2004 is amended as follows: 12970 CHEEMA v. Replace with

OPINION/ORDER
The initial screening was

OPINION/ORDER
Are the wife and children of Charles Hegna. An 2 No. 03 4294 American who was murdered during a 1984 terrorist hijacking of a Kuwaiti Airlines flight. The hijacking was undertaken by Hezbollah. The condominiums are currently in the custody of the United States government. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (providing that a

OPINION/ORDER
Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).2 1 The MEK is also known as the People's Mojahedin Organization for Iran. The MEK was founded in the 1960's as an Iranian Marxist group seeking to overthrow the regime then ruling Iran. After the Iranian regime fell and was replaced by a clerical. If the indictment is correct. We take it as true that the defendants knew that they were furnishing assistance to a designated

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Susan L. Circuit Judge: In this case we have before us a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Shawqi Ahmad Omar. He traveled to Iraq seeking reconstruction related work and would have left by November 2004 but for his arrest and detention. The government believes that Omar was part of Zarqawi's network and that he facilitated terrorist activities both in and outside of Iraq. The government alleges that four Jordanian foreign fighters and an Iraqi insurgent were captured along with Omar. That weapons and improvised explosive device making materials were found in his home. The panel also found that Omar was not a prisoner of war for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention. American MNF I officials have held Omar at various detention facilities in Iraq. The record indicates neither who made this decision nor what procedures were followed. The government also argues that even if the district court does have jurisdiction.

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Scott J. He invoked an exception overriding the dual sovereignty doctrine when one sovereign's prosecution is a

OPINION/ORDER
Is VACATED and REMANDED. Is DISMISSED. An NSL is an administrative subpoena that allows the FBI to gain access to. 1 when this information is

OPINION/ORDER
Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: My colleagues have written at length regarding their views on the issue of jurisdiction under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Their views are incorrect. I believe my colleagues have allowed the importance of the issues involved in the underlying merits of this appeal to cloud their judgment on the purely legal question of jurisdiction. What is now before us is an ordinary question concerning appellate jurisdiction over a discovery order. There is no question that CIPA § 7 authorizes the government to take an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court that authorizes the disclosure of classified information to the defendant. 18 (9th Cir. 1984) (

OPINION/ORDER
Jr. (

OPINION/ORDER
Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States.

01-6169 -- REVELL V. HOFFMAN -- 10/30/2002

Wheaton and Feral House were dismissed. Nightline.

David Hoffman is the author of two books. The following passages are from Oklahoma City Bombing:

1. Wheaton was approached by security consultants to Vice President Bush's

NATL CNCL RESISTANCE V. DOS

Representative Office.

OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the Board's denial of withholding and asylum for Rajwinder Kaur cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe that she is a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. He was brought before a magistrate. Who ordered him taken to a hospital where his broken leg was set. He was discharged from custody. Charges against him were withdrawn. He was elected general secretary of this organization in 1991.

OPINION/ORDER
United States Department of Justice were on brief. Now is subject to deportation because he has committed crimes of moral turpitude such as theft. While Goncalves' application was still pending. That at least those aliens whose applications were pending on the date of AEDPA's enactment. Goncalves' application was dismissed without being heard by the BIA and he was taken into custody by federal officials. This he was required to do by the precedent of this court. Was correct in the interpretation of the statute. He should have filed in the court of appeals. Her decision is entitled to deference. The first is which federal court. That Congress neither explicitly nor by implication repealed the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons in federal custody which the federal district courts have had since 1789 and which has always been available in immigration cases. If there is jurisdiction. Is of a type traditionally resolved by the courts. The second major set of issues addresses the merits: is the Attorney General correct in her interpretation that AEDPA 440(d).

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Scott L. With him on the briefs were George A. With him on the briefs were David W. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. While we determine that the designation was in compliance with the statute. The Secretary of State is empowered to designate an entity as a

OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the Board's denial of withholding cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. He was brought before a magistrate. Who ordered him taken to a hospital where his broken leg was set. He was discharged from custody. Charges against him were withdrawn. He was elected general secretary of this CHEEMA v. Cheema was contacted by him by telephone from Pakistan in 1996.

OPINION/ORDER
AUKAI 9651 craft in the United States each year.1 The Transportation Security Administration (

OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 OPINION PER CURIAM: Floyd Raymond Looker was charged in four separate indictments for various offenses associated with his activities as a member of a militia group. He entered guilty pleas in the other cases against him and was convicted of two counts of transporting unregistered firearms (destructive devices) (26 U.S.C. § 5861(j) (1994)). Allowing the presentence report

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are an organization called

OPINION/ORDER
The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment 2 under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.

OPINION/ORDER
Was raised as a Sikh and practices the Sikh religion. He was recruited by an organ of the government of India known as the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Were like those of the CIA. ASHCROFT . . . the respondent has presented no corroborative evidence whatsoever of the existence of this Indian government agency that is similar to the CIA and operates internationally. It is not difficult to find evidence of their existence. Yet the respondent would have the Immigration Judge or the Board grant asylum based simply on his tale of being an agent for an organization that spies on and assassinates religious minorities. It is under the office of the Prime Minister of India. It has been suggested that we cannot take notice of the RAW's existence and operations because we are limited in our review to the administrative record upon which the deportation order is based and the Attorney General's findings of fact. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4). It is nonsense to suppose that we are so cabined and confined that we cannot exercise the ordinary power of any court to take notice of facts that are beyond dispute.

OPINION/ORDER
Eda\'s wife and daughters were included in his asylum\ application.

\ ' var WPFootnote3 = '

OPINION/ORDER
We grant the petition for review because we conclude that the Immigration Judge's (

OPINION/ORDER
Which was heard by the same judge. It raised the

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Sergio Ramon Marquez was randomly selected for secondary security screening at Seattle Tacoma International Airport and found to be in possession of two kilograms of cocaine lodged underneath his pants. Is constitutionally reasonable where the passenger is randomly selected 6506 UNITED STATES v. Additional screening procedure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. He proceeded to the TSA security checkpoint where he was diverted to Checkpoint B. A passenger chosen for the selectee lane is subjected to more thorough search procedures. A passenger is randomly selected for the selectee lane either by the airlines at the time of check in or by TSA employees stationed at the security checkpoint entrance when the passenger presents his or her identification and boarding pass.1 It is not clear whether Marquez was selected by his airline or by the TSA employee who checked his identification and boarding pass before he entered the security line. For purposes of the constitutional analysis it is immaterial because there was no showing that the decision was supported by any articulable reason other than completely random selection.

OPINION/ORDER
The names of these individuals are classified. As is much of the information pertinent to this appeal. We have avoided reference to classified material to the greatest extent possible. We are presented with questions of grave significance questions that test the commitment of this nation to an independent judiciary. We agree with the district court that the Government's proposed substitutions for the witnesses' deposition testimony are inadequate. We reverse the district court insofar as it held that it is not possible to craft adequate substitutions. Moussaoui was arrested for an immigration violation in midAugust 2001 and. Was indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11 attacks. The Government filed a superceding indictment charging Moussaoui with six offenses: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism tranThe name

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Addressed the nation:

OPINION/ORDER
He is currently in the midst of a series of corruption trials in that country. The allegations are that Montesinos committed a host of crimes while he was in office. The picture is one of a man who has never been troubled by anything resembling a moral scruple. The facts about how he was brought to justice form the stage on which this lawsuit plays. 2 For decades journalists and politicians had been leveling accusations of corruption against Montesinos. At 1.1 That alone might not have done him in. As it turned out Montesinos was like a serial killer who relishes the opportunity to relive his crimes he had videotaped many of his dirty deeds. Announced that he was dissolving the intelligence agency and that he would step down after holding new elections. The former spy chief was also something of a magician. He had one more magic act up his Because this is an appeal from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) dismissal. The operative facts are those alleged in the complaint. Where outside sources are cited.

OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that four of his acquaintances were terrorists involved in a plot to bomb several shopping malls near a federal building in Los Angeles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). MOHAMED 9403 I Mohamed is a native and citizen of Tanzania. He provided a false name and stated that he was a former member of an al Qaeda cell. He reported that a terrorist group with ties to India and Pakistan was planning an attack on the United States. He stated that the targets of the attack were several shopping malls near the UCLA campus. He claimed he was providing this information to improve his chances of becoming a United States citizen. Mohamed knew that the information was false and that there was no planned attack. He later admitted that the hoax was an attempt to impose retribution on the four individuals he named. MOHAMED a target because he was familiar with that location from time spent in Los Angeles. He admits that he wanted the threat to be taken seriously because he was angry at his acquaintances and wanted them to

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.

OPINION/ORDER
The motions to appoint counsel and stay the execution are GRANTED. I. Hearn was convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. After Hearn was denied state post conviction relief. Claiming that he is mentally retarded and that his death sentence is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. A. Appointment of Counsel The legality of Hearn's detention was determined on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms

OPINION/ORDER
I. OVERVIEW Petitioner Aurel Vata is a native and citizen of Albania. He was not in possession of a valid unexpired The Honorable James S. We also AFFIRM the Board's denial of Vata's Motion to Reopen because Petitioner failed to offer evidence that was both material and unavailable at the time of his former hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The petitioner was born in Puke. Vata is a citizen of Albania and holds an Albanian passport. Charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) because he was not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa. Vata describes that his brother was the driver for the 4 No. 06 3066 / 06 3734 Vata v. His relative was a deputy of the Democratic Party between 1992 and 1996. Vata was living in the Don Bosco Center of Shkoder. Vata and his associates were forced to leap out of the windows of the second floor in order to escape. He was unaware of any arrests made as a result of this incident. A lot of them were happy for what happened. Cause they see America is the terrorist.

OPINION/ORDER
He says he was denied due process and his right to an impartial jury because the state trial court did not adequately investigate possible juror bias. PALMATEER counsel on his direct appeal was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Victim Werner was the fiancée of Suzanne Winder. Tracey later alleged self defense by claiming Werner was about to strike Tracey with the stick. As Werner was lying on the ground. The jury was selected. The jurors were excused from the courtroom so the trial court could hear a pretrial matter. The jurors were then brought back into the courtroom. That is tears came to my eyes hearing their situation and hardship. Before the jury was selected in talking to two women in line to use the restroom both expressed they felt he was guilty and had bad opinions of him. Is there any question in reference to the verdict. The trial court questioned Juror Arganbright about the conversations she claimed to have heard in the line to the restroom: Q Ma'am.

OPINION/ORDER
(2) that the running of the time should have been

OPINION/ORDER
I. Tasios is a Greek citizen who has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1967 when. An uncle are U.S. citizens. While his parents are lawful permanent residents. In 1995 Tasios was indicted on a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. That led the district court to find that his total offense level was 15. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Because his actual prison sentence was under five years. Is relevant to this case in two respects. Who have been convicted of drug trafficking offenses. Arguing that the INS's interpretation of § 440(d) was incorrect. The INS argues that AEDPA implicitly repealed § 2241 habeas jurisdiction for aliens who are deportable because they committed certain crimes. Each of these arguments is foreclosed by our recent holding in Bowrin that district courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to review the very claim presented here. His conviction for that offense would not have precluded him from applying for § 212(c) relief if the INS tried to deport him.

OPINION/ORDER
Torres was indicted for illegal re entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arguing that the underlying removal order was flawed and could not. I. 2 Torres was admitted into the United States on July 14. Torres was convicted of a felony drug trafficking offense in the Superior Court of New Jersey. A hearing was held before an Immigration Judge (IJ) at which Torres was not represented by counsel. Saying that Torres was

MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)

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.

OPINION/ORDER
The background of the case is as follows. Adedoyin is a Nigerian national who has entered the United States on several occasions. Adedoyin was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison and three years on probation. Who was using the name Lawrence Omoadedoyin. After a superseding indictment was filed. A second superseding indictment was filed on July 24. Adedoyin's trial on the mail and wire fraud counts was scheduled to start on September 11. He argued that he could not receive a fair trial in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center because he was a foreign national alleged to have perpetrated a fraud against. Stating that inasmuch as he was a Nigerian national and was not of Middle Eastern descent. There was little risk that the jury unfairly would link him to the events of September 11th. The court questioned the jurors individually to determine if each could be fair and impartial even though there were allegations that he had defrauded the World Trade Center. Was involved with Adedoyin at the time of trial in setting up another television station seeking to promote Africa and African culture.

OPINION/ORDER
Virginia court convicted Bobby Lee Ramdass of capital murder and sentenced him to death for the murder of Mohammed Kayani during the robbery of the convenience store where Kayani was a clerk. To tell the jury during sentencing that he was ineligible for parole. Accepting the Virginia Supreme Court's state law determination that Ramdass was not. We conclude that Simmons was not applicable. I The facts of Kayani's murder are related by the Virginia Supreme Court as follows: 2 During the night of September 1 and early morning of September 2. Were returning home in a car with three other men. A 7 Eleven clerk who was behind the cash register. Who were unarmed. Ramdass was

OPINION/ORDER
I Gary Steele was injured by a Virginia National Guard vehicle. The United States owns the annuity and retains

OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gutierrez was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1979 at the age of thirteen. He injured his back on the job and had to have an operation. Because he was unable to work. He was eventually caught by the police and pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale in November of 1991. He was released on parole in 1993 after serving only approximately 2 years of his sentence. Contending that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) based on his California conviction for the sale of cocaine. Gutierrez conceded that he was removable on the basis of his drug conviction. The IJ also noted that Gutierrez's deportation to Colombia would not cause great hardship because all his family members were from Colombia and were still primarily Spanish speakers. Gutierrez claimed that (1) the IJ had incorrectly balanced the equities in his case in denying a Section 212(c) was later amended by § 440(d) of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Tigrett II1 is a developer and promoter of restaurant and entertainment venues. He was chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer of HOB Entertainment. It was in connection with his efforts to promote the House of Blues concept that Tigrett personally incurred the $5 million expense which is at the center of this litigation. His name is consistently spelled in the more conventional way. While the discrepancy is noted in appellant's brief at p. 1. He has not directly advised which version is correct and has not moved to correct the case caption. Appellant is referred to herein as

NEELLEY V. NAGLE (4/9/1998, NO. 97-6162)

In her petition Neelley alleges that her trial counsel was ineffective because he operated under a conflict of interest. The Neelleys were arrested in Tennessee on bad check charges. Judy Neelley was extradited to Alabama to stand trial for Millican's murder. She was tried in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County. The trial judge found that Neelley was indigent and appointed local attorney Robert B. French presented the defense that Neelley was not criminally responsible for her actions because her husband had forced her to abduct and kill Lisa Ann Millican. Neelley testified that her husband habitually abused her and that her will had been subjugated to his through fear. Neelley filed in state court a second petition for post conviction relief that included a claim that French's representation was unconstitutionally inadequate. Which was denied. See Neelley v. Arguing (1) that AEDPA is an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to her petition. (2) that the new habeas provisions are inapplicable to her case because Alabama has not taken advantage of AEDPA's

OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that a reasonable juror could have found that Lakhani was not entrapped and that the District Court was correct in ruling that the Government's law enforcement efforts did not offend due process. Was born in India but resided in London. He was a trader (i.e. Muhammad Habib Ur Rehman is a native of Pakistan and a professional informant. Rehman was introduced to the U.S. His U.S. handlers were forced to extract him and his family from Pakistan. Rehman was deemed

OPINION/ORDER
The BIA found that Malachy McAllister (Malachy) was removable because he had engaged in terrorist activities. Were removable because they had overstayed their visas.1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). I. Facts The McAllisters are natives and citizens of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Malachy was ultimately convicted of

OPINION/ORDER
That Murray and Gould had never actually worked for him and that they were threats to national security. We will continue to refer to the INS. 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 BACKGROUND In 1998. Who are responsible for general oversight and enforcement of the IPPCTP provisions. The PA is responsible for monitoring participants' compliance with program requirements. The PA is required to terminate from the program Id. § 139.4. NGIT was selected as the any participant who is fired for cause. The PA is obligated to report to the DOS and INS on certain aspects of the program. After they were approved to participate in the IPPCTP. They began to have concerns about Smith's conduct. did not pay them and told them that business was too slow. That both of them were working for many different employers. That Murray was getting his pilot's license. That they were both working for others in the Las Vegas area. That Murray was getting his pilot's license in order to open a business in Yemen.

OPINION/ORDER
The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled

UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA (12/11/2001, NO. 00-14723)

Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.

OPINION/ORDER
Michael Ely was convicted by a jury of bulk cash smuggling and making a false and fictitious material statement and representation to a Customs and Border Protection officer in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5332. The jury also found that Ely's interest in the property was subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to section 5332. Was returning to the United States on a flight from Amsterdam to Memphis on April 2. Ely had answered

OPINION/ORDER
The district court concluded that the plaintiffs are precluded from levying upon the property because they relinquished that right as a condition of accepting partial payment of their judgment from the United States government under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. Seventh Circuits have rejected similar appeals by the Hegna family within the past year. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (noting that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in any action seeking money damages

OPINION/ORDER
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.

00-2043 -- PADILLA V. DORSEY -- 08/04/2000

Circuit Judges.

02-2314 -- SALEHPOOR V. SHAHINPOOR -- 02/18/2004

Circuit Judge.

OKONGWU V. RENO (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10157)

Who is a native and citizen of Nigeria. When he was seized for deportation. Tifton is in the Middle District of Georgia.

OPINION/ORDER
GONZALES claims that he was persecuted by the Sri Lankan government because of its incorrect suspicion that he was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or Tamil Tigers). Claims that Suntharalinkam was never persecuted by the government. Is in fact a suspected Tamil Tiger who seeks to enter the United States to further that organization's terrorist activities. Asking us to uphold it as supported by substantial evidence despite the IJ's own statements that the purported

OPINION/ORDER
His petition was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Petitioner's case was transferred to Judge Haynes. The court found that the claims of insufficiency of the evidence and improper voir dire were not supported by evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the state court's findings of fact.1 As to the Brady claim. B. FACTS The following facts were found by the state appellate court on direct review: The victims. Were street people who camped under the bridges along the Cumberland River. Defendant was shirtless. Was a billfold similar to that carried by truck drivers. The gun was either a .32 or .38 caliber revolver. The leash was a choker chain with a leather belt. When the man got to within twenty feet he spoke identifying himself as

OPINION/ORDER
Appellant was interviewed by two FBI agents for the purposes of (1) determining whether Appellant. Who is of Middle Eastern descent. This noncustodial interview was conducted in the lobby of Appellant's apartment building and lasted approximately 45 minutes. One of the FBI agents asked Appellant about an answer he had provided to the following question on Form I 485 (

OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of

OPINION/ORDER
Crosland were scientists employed with the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (

OPINION/ORDER
Was on the brief for petitioner.

OPINION/ORDER
Was charged with contempt of court for failing to pay his court ordered fines. Rouillard was 26 years old at the time of his sentencing for the present offense. The district court concluded Rouillard's criminal history calculation

OPINION/ORDER
They discovered that the object was crack cocaine and placed Hartwell under arrest. Hartwell argues that the drugs should have been suppressed because the search offended the Fourth Amendment.1 We hold that it did not. I. Hartwell also appeals the District Court's decision that he was not eligible for a safety valve departure at sentencing. A statutorily created right to appeal is generally held to be waiveable.

99-4075 -- SANWICK V. CARVER -- 12/14/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant Paul Sanwick appeals the district court's decision dismissing his habeas corpus petition. He also alleged his guilty plea was coerced. His conviction should have been for second. Or should have raised them. Inasmuch as it plainly appears that no substantial question is presented

OPINION/ORDER
The production of the Waiver Documents was pursuant to subpoena and pursuant to written confidentiality agreements between Qwest and each agency.(1) In relevant part. Except to the extent that (1) At oral argument Qwest disclaimed any argument that its production of the Waiver Documents to the agencies was involuntary. We take it as settled that Qwest's production of the Waiver Documents was voluntary. Which allows us to focus on material issues rather than extraneous matters.

the Staff determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Commission's discharge of its duties and responsibilities.

NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)

BACKGROUND

OPINION/ORDER
1 natives and Don is the principal or lead petitioner. His wife's and child's petitions are derivative of his petition. They conceded that they are removable. Because a cook employed at the restaurant owned by Don was arrested by the TDB as a suspected LTTE terrorist. He and his family were not threatened or harmed by the government or any terrorist groups. He did not support nor was he active in any political group. He did not know that the cook was a Tamil Tiger until his arrest. Don stated that subsequently his life was threatened by the LTTE once in person outside of Colombo. Neither he nor his family was physically harmed.3 Don agreed to try to get the cook released. Contacted several of his friends at the police station where the cook was imprisoned. He would

OPINION/ORDER
The determination of an appropriate sentence would be within the court's discretion and the statutory maximum sentence for the counts pleaded to was life imprisonment. The Department of Corrections notified the court that Trussell was ineligible for assessment under § 559.115. Probation may not be granted pursuant to this section to offenders who have been convicted of ... statutory rape in the first degree pursuant to section 566.032. As these were the counts to which Trussell pled 2 guilty. The judgment was entered July 30. Trussell was served with it on November 21. Which was denied by the state circuit court and the Missouri Court of Appeals. Alleging that the amended sentence violated his plea agreement and that its entry outside of his presence was unlawful. While the circuit court ruled that his claims were procedurally barred. It is doubtful that Trussell filed his petition within the one year limitations period set by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It is also likely that.

OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Was on brief. We affirm.

99-2331 -- LOPEZ V. LYTLE -- 08/07/2000

Sr. (

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 298 F.3d 824. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gutierrez was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1979 at the age of thirteen. He injured his back on the job and had to have an operation. Because he was unable to work. He was eventually caught by the police and pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale in November of 1991. He was released on parole in 1993 after serving only approximately 2 years of his sentence. Contending that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) based on his California conviction for the sale of cocaine. Gutierrez conceded that he was removable on the basis of his drug conviction. The IJ also noted that Gutierrez's deportation to Colombia would not cause great hardship because all his family members were from Colombia and were still primarily Spanish speakers. (2) the translation of his testimony before the IJ was inadequate and deprived him of due process of law.

OKONGWU V. RENO (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10157)

Who is a native and citizen of Nigeria. When he was seized for deportation. Tifton is in the Middle District of Georgia.

OPINION/ORDER
This case is the consolidation of six separate appeals. Were targeted at avoiding the taxes the Republics placed on tobacco imported into their respective countries. The Revenue Rule The revenue rule is a long standing common law rule that prevents the courts of one sovereign from enforcing or adjudicating tax claims from another sovereign.1 Although 18th century English courts originally developed the rule to protect British trade. 2 it has a long history of recognition and application in this country.3 The rule was originally justified in England on the basis of nationalistic commercial protectionism. 4 but its application in this country is based and justified on the grounds of respect for sovereignty and the separation of powers. Substance over form We initially recognize that it is the substance of a claim. That is important under the revenue rule. 268 F.3d at 130 (

OPINION/ORDER
They were unconstitutionally prohibited from protesting in the traditional public forums surrounding the Broadmoor Hotel (Broadmoor) in Colorado Springs. Approximately (1) NATO is the popular acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Which is located across the street. The perimeter was roughly defined by five checkpoints at roadway intersections surrounding the Broadmoor property. The security zone was completely closed to all persons except conference attendees. The task force's primary security concern was the threat of a terrorist attack utilizing explosives. Broadmoor employees were bused into the zone from an off site staging area. They were pre screened by metal detectors and scanners. Several hundred members of the national and international media were allowed into the security zone. Members of the media were pre screened at an off site staging area (the World Arena) and bused into the Broadmoor. Members of the media were restricted to an area around the International Conference Center.

OPINION/ORDER
The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba

OPINION/ORDER
She was authorized to remain in this country until March 23. Francois was placed in deportation proceedings by the filing of an Order to Show Cause with the Immigration Court. The Order charged that Francois was an alien who failed to comply with the conditions of the nonimmigrant status under which she had been admitted to the United States. B. Factual Background Francois contends she was subject to past persecution in Eritrea because of her religious beliefs and political opinion. That she has a well founded fear of future persecution if she returns because she is (1) a Christian. Francois's Individual Experiences Francois belonged to the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) and was involved in studying the Bible and teaching the Catechism. The last time she distributed pamphlets was in 1986. The ELF was a group that opposed the Marxist Mengistu regime. Francois was prepared to perform two years of government service in exchange for her free education at the university. She refused to cooperate in the study of that ideology because it denied the existence of God and was against her religion.

OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action.

HARTZ. Petitioners Ivonne Tulengkey and Reynaldo Situmorang are natives and citizens of Indonesia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a). Tulengkey was admitted to the United States on May 2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) Ms. 120 n.2 (10th Cir. 1991) (

02-6250 -- U.S. V. KERNS -- 12/17/2002

Kerns waived his right to appeal or collaterally challenge his sentence provided it is within or below the applicable guideline range. Based on this plea. Finding that Kerns's assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel did not challenge the validity of the plea or the waiver and that the sentence imposed was within the applicable guideline range. The district court concluded that Kerns's waiver was enforceable and that his collateral challenge to his sentence was therefore barred. Id.

OPINION/ORDER
Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing

OPINION/ORDER
In August 1995 Thai was arrested in connection with a murder at the Café DiVang in Des Moines. An investigation revealed that a Vietnamese group was responsible and that Thai was one of several people at the scene. He was not explicitly asked whether he chose to waive them. Thai made statements which were later introduced at trial against him. Thai indicated that he was afraid of what the members of the group (some of whom were sitting in the police station and had seen Thai go into the interrogation room) might do to him if they learned that he had talked to the police. An expert testified that there is a cultural distrust of the police in Vietnam and that there were several serious mistakes on the Vietnamese language Miranda form. The same expert testified that the transcript of the Vietnamese translation of the verbal reading of the Miranda warning was ninety nine percent accurate. Thai argued that he did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of Thai's statements taken in interrogation on the further ground that the statement was induced by a promise of leniency from Detective O'Donnell.

GOODMAN V. UNITED STATES (8/25/1998, NO. 97-4123)

600 from a federally insured bank and was sentenced to twelve years in prison

OPINION/ORDER
II was indicted on 22 counts of wire fraud. Arguing that (1) certain jury instructions were erroneous. (2) venue in the Western District of Michigan was improper with regard to five of the seven mail fraud charges. (3) the district court's restitution order was excessive. First Financial personnel did not disclose to the potential borrowers that Wood was in prison as a convicted felon. Interested callers were sent a package of documents compiled by Wood. Without liability for any diminution in price which may have occurred. The first loan transaction at issue was with Robert Graham. The sale of Graham's stock was supposed to be a shortagainst the box sale. Because the broker was unable to borrow 35. The short position was closed by selling the 35. Graham was not told that half of his collateral had been sold when he attempted to get his stock back in late 1994. Although the stock was thus disposed of by First Financial within three months of closing the loan transaction. He was later sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $570.

02-9568 -- ESTRADA-ESCOBAR V. ASHCROFT -- 07/20/2004

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioners are natives and citizens of Peru. They have overstayed their visitors' visas to this country and acknowledge their status as removable aliens. He was chief of security for Peruvian judges who sat on terrorist cases.

OPINION/ORDER
Christina Aragao and her two children were abducted and held hostage for several days before being freed by police. Ewin Oscar Martinez were convicted of hostage taking and conspiracy to commit hostage taking in violation of the Hostage Taking Act. Each was sentenced to life in prison. They raise three significant challenges to their convictions and sentences that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates impermissibly on the basis of alienage and that Congress lacked the power to enact it. That the district court erred in applying a six level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(1) because a ransom note was never delivered. We are unpersuaded by those arguments and. Affirm.1 Several additional challenges were raised by appellants in their briefs and at oral argument. (4) failing to instruct the jury that alienage is an element of conviction under the Hostage Taking Act which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As they are relevant to the appeal. The following facts were established at trial and during the sentencing proceedings.

OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Petitioner is a thirty nine year old native and citizen of Iran. He was admitted to the U.S. on June 17. Was placed in deportation proceedings. In the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution (after the Shah was overthrown and the U.S. hostages were taken. Who was 16 years old at the time. Its history is studded with anti Western activity. MEK is a terrorist group currently designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under INA section 219. Petitioner's stated reason for affiliating was the religious nature of the organization that corresponded with his personal upbringing. Petitioner asserts that he was never a formal member of MEK. Petitioner was arrested in Ghom. He was charged with possession of a gun and a hand grenade during a demonstration and sentenced to life in prison after a thirty This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that today Ghom is a city of approximately 800. 000 people located 100 miles southwest of Tehran (pop. 8 million). 1 There was a confusion during Petitioner's testimony about what type of an election he participated in.

OPINION/ORDER
Was indicted in Catoosa County. The following facts were established during the guilt phase of the trial:1 At 10:30 p.m. on November 24. His body was found the next morning in a chert pit. A 1980 Buick Riviera was stolen from the parking lot of a shopping mall in Decatur. The Callahan car was discovered abandoned three miles west of Decatur. A 1982 Buick LeSabre was stolen from a parking lot in Oneida. It was soon spotted in Oneida. A number of guns were recovered from the interior of the stolen automobile. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence.

OPINION/ORDER
Ahilan Nadarajah was repeatedly tortured in Sri Lanka. He fled to the United States where he was detained upon arrival. The government's arguments against the grant of immigration relief have been rejected and Nadarajah has been awarded relief by an immigration judge. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I This is a case about one individual. The backdrop of this case is the quarter century old battle between the government of Sri Lanki and a group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (

OPINION/ORDER
Denying the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc is amended as follows: After the sentence. AFSHARI Fisher and Judge Berzon were recused from all proceedings in this case.

OPINION/ORDER
Abela's petition was not timely because the statue of limitations was not tolled by Abela's petition for writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court following post conviction litigation in state court. The panel held that Abela's habeas petition was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We now hold that Abela's petition was timely filed. 1 No. 00 2430 Abela v. Martin No. 00 2430 Abela was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and carrying a concealed weapon on July 24. He was sentenced to a term of seven to fifteen years for voluntary manslaughter and a concurrent sentence of forty months to five years for carrying a concealed weapon. The motion was denied

98-6263 -- MOORE V. WARD -- 02/03/1999

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

James Alvin Moore. Moore asserts he is entitled to application of the tolling provision of

OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. Was appointed poet laureate of New Jersey in July 2002. There is hereby established the New Jersey William Carlos Williams Citation of Merit to be presented to a distinguished poet from New Jersey who shall be considered the poet laureate of the State of New Jersey for a period of two years. Shall biennially appoint and convene a panel of four persons who are either distinguished poets or persons who represent a range of stylistic approaches in the field of poetry. In part:

OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked. Whether the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional. Numerous news reports were written on the crime. Crater and Robinson were tried for robbery. Robinson was convicted on all counts. After learning that Crater was reluctant to accept this deal. Finding no evidence that the state judge harbored

NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (7/18/2001, NO. 99-14391)

BACKGROUND

OPINION/ORDER
Was removed from the United States on or about August 6. He was convicted in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Hubbard was sentenced to time served. It very recently was denied. Hubbard contended that the conviction was the result of a malicious and vindictive prosecution. He was indicted and convicted on the basis of perjured testimony. He was improperly convicted on the basis of testimony by his wife. Hubbard currently is detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in San Juan. A criminal complaint was filed on February 4. A Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him. An indictment was filed about a month later. The Federal Public Defender was allowed to withdraw. A motion to suppress evidence was filed. The government was ordered to respond. A new indictment was filed on January 10. Hodge was appointed. Hubbard was ordered by the District Court on August 10. Before us now is Hubbard's petition for writ of mandamus. Is invalid because the prosecution was in retaliation for a civil action he filed against the New York Police Department.

OPINION/ORDER
600 from a federally insured bank and was sentenced to twelve years in prison

OPINION/ORDER
600 from a federally insured bank and was sentenced to twelve years in prison

AL NAJJAR V. ASHCROFT (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14947)

The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot.

OPINION/ORDER
OLMOS ESPARZA FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Olmos Esparza was found in the United States in December 2003. He eventually admitted he was a Mexican citizen who had previously been deported and that he lacked authority to be in the United States. He was convicted following a trial of illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was initially sentenced to 70 months in custody. The district court determined that it would have sentenced Olmos Esparza differently if it had known the Guidelines were not mandatory and would have ordered a full resentencing. If the defendant was previously deported or unlawfully remained in the United States following certain types of convictions. U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1) provides for an increase in sentence based on the type of prior offense: If the defendant previously was deported. After (A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. (B) a conviction for a felony drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed was 13 months or less.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
The question is whether the term

GOODMAN V. UNITED STATES (8/25/1998, NO. 97-4123)

600 from a federally insured bank and was sentenced to twelve years in prison

OPINION/ORDER
Who was convicted of rape and robbery and sentenced as a persistent offender to life imprisonment with twenty five years of parole ineligibility. The principal issue at trial was the identity of the rapist. The principal evidence was the victim's post hypnotic identification. The state prosecutor made certain improper arguments during jury summation which were addressed by the trial judge with curative instructions. The issue on appeal is whether these improper arguments deprived Moore of his right to a fair trial. 25 year old M.A. was viciously assaulted by a man in the bedroom of her cottage in Somers Point. Despite the man's assurance she would not be hurt if she did as she was told. M.A. remained in her bed for four hours fear ful the man was still in the house. She arranged to have the police called and. While the bedroom was dark. There was enough outside light

OPINION/ORDER
Ahmed was placed in removal proceedings pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because he feared that he would be killed by the same militants if he were compelled to return to his native Algeria. The FIS was poised to repeat its success in the next round of national elections and would likely have commanded an absolute parliamentary majority when a military coup in January 1992 brought the entire process to an abrupt halt. After several of his colleagues were killed by armed Islamic militants while being transported by bus from the airport where they served as security guards to the government compound where they lived. Ahmed was placed in removal proceedings. The IJ concluded that Ahmed was statutorily ineligible for relief. Because he had not pointed to anything that was separable from the occupational hazards that went along with those jobs. Our review throughout is governed by the substantial evidence standard. We assess whether the BIA's determination was

OPINION/ORDER
The issue in this appeal is whether aliens who have committed serious crimes in this country may be detained in custody for prolonged periods when the country of origin refuses to allow the individual's return. We conclude that such detention is permitted by the relevant statutes. Is constitutional if the government provides individualized periodic review of the alien's eligibility for release on parole. We will grant a writ of habeas corpus subject to the right of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promptly institute appropriate administrative action. Petitioner is a native of Vietnam who was paroled 1 into 1. The term

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended. A drug offense may qualify . . .

OPINION/ORDER
ORDER It is ORDERED. McGrail Deputy Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. With him on the briefs was Daniel H. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. I. Background Rashad was the target of a sting operation involving ``controlled buys'' by a government informant. The record is silent as to the details of the talks. That ``[t]he plea paperwork [was] drawn up. Claiming he was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A criminal defendant must show two things: that his lawyer made errors ``so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. '' and that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial. That there is a ``reasonable probability that. The result of the proceeding would have been different.'' United States v.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6512.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
That decision is the subject of the appeal in case No. 99 56498. MOD moved the district court for a determination that its judgment against Cubic was immune from attachment. JURISDICTION The denial of a motion to intervene as of right is an appealable final order. District court orders entered after the entry of judgment are generally reviewable by a separate appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The judgment against the Iranian defendants was for Flatow sued under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (

OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Petitioner was admitted to the United States in 1970 as an immigrant. He was convicted. Was sentenced to three and one half years' imprisonment. § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii).1 1 This section provides: Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(iii). 15018 LARA CHACON v. Which is defined as an aggravated felony in INA § 101(a)(43)(D).2 In two subsequent amendments to the charging document. Petitioner admitted that he was a citizen of Mexico. Is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). 2 LARA CHACON v. He concluded that Petitioner's money laundering convictions were predicated upon trafficking in marijuana. The IJ cited the PSR as follows: [T]he Presentence Report states that the respondent was identified as a

OPINION/ORDER
AFSHARI The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Money is fungible. Giving money to a political organization that is not engaged in terrorist activities is constitutionally protected. The determination of whether or not an organization is engaged in terrorism is therefore crucial. Because it distinguishes activities that can be criminalized from those that are protected by the First Amendment. This case concerns the manner in which this distinction is drawn. The net result is that Rahmani is being criminally prosecuted. Almost certainly will be convicted. For contributing to an organization that has been designated as terrorist with none of the protections that are constitutionally UNITED STATES v. Rahmani will in all likelihood spend many years in prison for contributing to an organization whose designation the D.C. Or attempts or conspires to do so

OPINION/ORDER
Which was dismissed at petitioner's request. We hold that the dismissal of Thai's initial § 2255 petition was not on the merits for

OPINION/ORDER
Weber argues (1) that a judicial proceeding was not pending at the time he left a voice mail message threatening to murder a federal district judge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Assistant United States Attorney Mark Rosenbaum (

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
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742. Will affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts of the underlying dispute and we will. Cort alleges that he was brought into a drug trafficking conspiracy by a man only known as

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were George A. With him on the briefs was Lawrence W. With him on the brief were Frank W. With him on the brief were Frank W. Both groups have brought petitions for judicial review of their designations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. s 1189(b)(1).1 1 Because these separate petitions involve the same statute and similar claims. I The statute before us is unique.

OPINION/ORDER
We hold that this action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. Circuit Judge: This case arises out of the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to remove from the internet a video that they may have believed posed a danger to the public safety. We are called upon to determine. Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on their contention that their actions did not violate the First Amendment rights of the video's filmmaker and distributor and. Whether the plaintiffs appellants' claims are nonetheless barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. We hold that although the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their First Amendment argument. They are entitled to qualified immunity. The decision of the district court is affirmed. Are as follows. The website included this text as an introduction to the film: Is there going to be a Military Takeover of New York City on New Years Eve 1999?

OPINION/ORDER
To avoid confusion on the part of readers of the various decisions we will continue to refer to him as

OPINION/ORDER
Most of the casualties were Kenyan. The plaintiffs in this case are all Kenyan: victims. The latter provides that

00-2462 -- COOPER V. BRAVO -- 01/11/2002

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Steven Clark Cooper. Concluding it was not filed within the one year limitations period set forth in 28 U.S.C.

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the motion for injunction and summary reversal were Virginia A. With him on the response were Kenneth L. Hynes were on the response of amicus curiae Norfolk Southern Railway Company in support of the appellant. With him on the opposition were Robert J. With him on the opposition were Brian Boynton and James B. Act is emergency legislation. It was passed on only one reading by the D.C. Was not reviewed by the Congress and is effective for only 90 days. Act is invalid and an The D.C. Act provides that DCDOT may issue a permit for rail or motor carrier transportation otherwise banned only upon a showing that

OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because (1) he is actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted. (3) he was incapable of filing his state post conviction motion pro se because the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated did not contain New York State case law. (2) Doe did not exercise reasonable diligence during the period that he seeks to have tolled for attorney incompetence. (3) Doe is not entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of the purported inadequacies of the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated because he has not established that the library lacked materials adequate to prepare his state post conviction motion. We requested supplemental briefing on whether

OPINION/ORDER
Who were eligible to access the website. Pilots Gene Wong and James Gardner were included on this list. Davis claimed he was concerned about untruthful allegations that he believed Konop was making on the website. Morella related that Nobles was upset by Konop's accusations that Nobles was suspected of fraud and by other disparaging statements published on the website. Konop believed Nobles had obtained the contents of his website and was threatening to sue Konop for defamation based on statements contained on the website. INC. 12459 claims to have learned only later from the examination of system logs that Davis had accessed the website using Wong's name. Because he claims the district court improperly quashed subpoenas for witnesses Konop sought to have testify at trial. DISCUSSION The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. We must determine whether there are any genuine 12460 KONOP v. Which was intended to afford privacy protection to electronic communications. Which was designed to

OPINION/ORDER
Is facially unconstitutional. (ii) that 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253(c) and 2254(d) (also as amended) are unconstitutional as applied to him by the courts of the Eleventh Circuit. The district court dismissed for lack of standing on the ground that the relief sought was unlikely 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 to redress Jenkins' alleged inability to obtain

OPINION/ORDER
Is corrected as follows: At slip op. page 13199.

OPINION/ORDER
Johnson was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment to be followed by 60 months of supervised release under the Sentencing Guideline range for D methamphetamine. This was prior to the elimination of any distinction between D and Lmethamphetamine in sentencing. He now claims he should have been sentenced for possession of L methamphetamine. [1] There is no merit to Johnson's substantive claim that he should have been sentenced under the lower guideline range for L methamphetamine. Nor is there any merit to Johnson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise the issue at sentencing. Johnson has never offered any evidence that the substance involved was L rather than D methamphetamine. Is a procedural one. It is whether the district court should have dismissed the petition as successive under the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
The issue in this case is whether state legislation allowing people to vote by mail over an extended period violates a federal statute requiring that the election shall be held on a particular day. No facts are in dispute. The State of Oregon prevailed on summary judgment.3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Con 2 The suit is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The manner of appointment is now by popular election but was formerly by the legislatures of some states. 8896 gress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations. Senators and the President and Vice President were legislated as part of Reconstruction in the 1870's. Is established as the day for the election. Were not covered by this election day provision. Because until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. They were selected by state legislatures. Congress provided that they should be elected at the same time as Representatives were elected.9 The law remains the same today. Cl. 3. 7 3 U.S.C. § 1. 8 2 U.S.C. § 7. 9 2 U.S.C. § 1. 8897 the first Monday in November is the day when presidential and vice presidential electors

OPINION/ORDER
Dissent by Judge Browning 1 Judge Gould was drawn to replace Judge Wiggins. Cooper was sentenced to death. Without regard to when the petition was filed. Cooper needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Cooper could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Cooper escaped from the California Insti 2 A memorandum disposition was filed December 15. Part IV of this opinion is the same as Parts 4 7 of the disposition. 8690 tute for Men (CIM). Who was spending the night at the Ryens' home. A blood stained khaki green button identical to the buttons on field jackets issued at the state prison from which Cooper escaped was found on the rug. Hair found in the bathroom sink was consistent with that of Jessica and Doug Ryen. A bloodstained rope in the Lease house bedroom was similar to a bloodstained rope found on the Ryens' driveway. A hatchet covered with dried blood and human hair that was found near the Ryens' home was missing from the Lease house.

OPINION/ORDER
YARBOROUGH tal contention here is that the admission of the fact that a coparticipant made a statement to law enforcement. The home of Debra Aguilera was struck by gunfire. Mason was seen in the passenger seat of a maroon BMW owned by Alder Fenton. Displaying a handgun and bragging to Fenton's brother Jeremiah:

OPINION/ORDER
White is not challenging the validity of his state court conviction. Was in violation of both the United States and Washington constitutions. After rejecting the State of Washington's argument that jurisdiction was proper only under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Reasoning that a COA was not necessary when a petitioner seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. White's appeal raises several issues that we have not previously addressed concerning the proper jurisdictional statute and procedural requirements for a state prisoner attacking the legality of his detention resulting from an administrative decision by state prison authorities. The circuits that have addressed these issues are divided on whether jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or under § 2254. On whether a COA is required. Which is properly understood as a general grant of habeas authority that provides federal court jurisdiction to a state prisoner when that prisoner is not in custody pursuant to a

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. RIO operates a website that informs prospective customers about its hotel and allows those enticed by Lady Luck to make reservations. 4468 RII is a Costa Rican entity that participates in an Internet sports gambling operation. Which was not authorized to accept service on RII's behalf. RII's 4470 eventual responses were almost entirely useless. 3 permits service in a place not within any judicial district of the United States

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1) The sentence beginning

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We hold that Griffey's petition is governed by the substantive standards of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Graber *Charles Goldsmith is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 13530. Was the relevant date for determining whether Arizona met the requirements of Chapter 154 for the purpose of Petitioner's case and that (2) Arizona's system provided (a) for the payment of reasonable 4492 litigation expenses and (b) adequate competency standards for appointed counsel. Judges Graber and McKeown have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. & III: The decision in this case is similar to that in Bush v. Gore1 good for this case and this case only except that here the decision is not even good for this case. Was entirely irrelevant to the outcome of the case before it. (d) Arizona was unquestionably not in compliance with Chapter 154 at the time the appeal was heard. (f) no other state in the nation has ever been held to have successfully opted in under Chapter 154.

OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that

OPINION/ORDER
The cabin was in total chaos. He eventually was handcuffed and the plane was diverted back to Las Vegas. We are unpersuaded by Gonzalez's argument that the enhancement is inapplicable. His conduct was a threat not only to crew and passengers but to the aircraft. Who was seated in the last row of the airplane. Just as Poulin was retrieving an oxygen tank. Gonzalez said that he was having a heart attack. Saying:

OPINION/ORDER
Contending that because his prior theft offense sentence was suspended. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Echavarria was convicted of the felony offense of theft. His sentence was later suspended. He 14752 was placed on probation not to exceed 36 months. Because Echavarria is not a citizen of the United States. He was detained by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (

OPINION/ORDER
Alcala was sentenced to death following his conviction for first degree murder. He is currently in prison. Challenging the district court's conclusions that (1) Alcala's constitutional rights were not violated when the state trial court admitted Crappa's prior testimony. (5) these failures to investigate were not constitutional deficiencies that could be included in the cumulative error analysis. Alcala was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. It is this trial that is at issue before us. He again was sentenced to death. They were at Huntington Beach at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 that afternoon when a man asked if he could take their pictures for a school contest. She testified that he was wearing a striped. That it was a long sleeved shirt. After Alcala was arrested. He testified that he was certain that the man had been wearing a blue Hawaiian shirt and had the impression that the man had on cut off shorts and sandals. Testified at trial that they were at Huntington Beach the day before Samsoe's disappearance.

OPINION/ORDER
Was shot and killed in front of the A/C Pizza and Deli in Sacramento. There were somewhere between 50 and 200 patrons at the location that night. Many of whom were drinking and partying outside the establishment at the time the shots were fired.1 Among those present were members of both the

OPINION/ORDER
. . . the 70 months is excessive. Relative to

OPINION/ORDER
Prohibits United States citizens from investing in and trading with Iran.1 The question we face is whether an American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company are covered by the Executive Order and. Whether the guarantees are unenforceable as a result. We conclude that the guarantees were illegal under the Executive Order and. 059 is appended to this opinion in its entirety. All quotations in this account are from the complaint or the guarantees.

OPINION/ORDER
Is WITHDRAWN. A new opinion with Judge Rawlinson's dissent is filed herewith.

OPINION/ORDER
WOODFORD At the penalty phase of a trial in which a death sentence is at stake. We are confronted here with the issue of whether. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance

OPINION/ORDER
He was convicted by a Los Angeles County jury on two counts of making a terrorist threat by saying

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the district court correctly rejected Sanders' claim that the jury that convicted him was drawn from a jury venire that unconstitutionally failed to reflect the number of Hispanics in Kern County. Where he was tried. We also conclude that this error was not harmless. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Sanders was found guilty of murdering of Janice Allen. Who was a drug dealer. Maxwell was one of his customers. As was Thompson. The plan was to lure Boender to Maxwell's home. Have Sanders whom Boender did not know attack and rob Boender. Then have Sanders bind and

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At a murder trial in which the central question is whether the defendant acted in self defense. Are a defendant's constitutional rights violated when spectators are permitted to wear buttons depicting the

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Michael Alvarado was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery and is currently serving a 15 year to life sentence in California state prison. Alvarado's conviction was obtained primarily based on statements he made during a two hour interrogation that occurred when he was 17 years old. Alleging that he was deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights in violation of Miranda v. Our review of this case is governed by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Which permits us to grant a federal writ of habeas corpus only if the underlying state court decision is either contrary to. The Supreme Court established the legal principle that juvenile defendants are. Haley and its progeny are highly instructive precedents to the case now before us. If a juvenile is more susceptible to police coercion during a custodial interrogation. Then the same juvenile is also more susceptible to the impression that he is. 112 (1995) (stating that an

OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that: (1) § 46504 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied to some of his actions. (2) the jury may have relied on an imper 3838 UNITED STATES v. (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). There was conflicting testimony as to what happened thereafter.1 The flight attendants said that Naghani initially denied smoking and that even when he did admit smoking. Naghani was made to sit in a jump seat near the lavatory and became angry when he was told by in charge flight attendant Roman Dubejsky that the plane might have to return to Los Angeles. The substance of which is disputed. Who were standing a few feet away and overheard the

OPINION/ORDER
Is a prominent leader of the All India Sikh Student Federation. The Federation is dedicated to establishing an independent sovereign Sikh nation. While Barapind was still in India and an active Federation member. Barapind came to the United States using a passport bearing a false name and was immediately detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Asserting that he would face persecution if he were returned to India. ENOMOTO Barapind's asylum proceedings were then interrupted by India's request that the United States extradite him.2 India requested Barapind's extradition pursuant to its extradition treaty with the United States.3 See Quinn v. 782 (9th Cir. 1986) (

OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of an extrajudicial statement given by his accomplice. We conclude that while the admission of Hill's statement was improper. The error was harmless under contemporary Supreme Court authority. 13200 FORN v. HORNUNG FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The November Statement Forn was convicted of conspiring with and soliciting James Hill (a/k/a

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally.

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that the district judge erred in holding that the Washington State Supreme Court decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Brady v. Because we hold that the state court's decision that there was no Brady violation in 3084 Benn's case constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. The bodies were still warm and bleeding. There was a bullet hole in the couch in the living room consistent with someone having been shot while on the couch. There were also bloodstains that matched Dethlefsen's blood type on both the couch itself and on a newspaper that was on it. The medical examiner testified that Dethlefsen was shot in the chest while on the couch because only the chest wound would have allowed him to move around and end up on the floor where the police found him. There was a .45 caliber handgun on the floor between the two bodies and a baseball bat next to Dethlefsen's body. There was also blood on one of Benn's boots with spatter patterns consistent with Benn's having shot Nelson in the head while standing next to his body.

OPINION/ORDER
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As they were about to board a flight to Paris at Los Angeles International Airport. Krikor and Zenda Tatoyan (

OPINION/ORDER
Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section

OPINION/ORDER
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that the Hasans had failed to establish that their past persecution was on account of an enumerated ground. They were more likely than not to experience torture with the consent or approval of government officials acting in their official capacity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (

OPINION/ORDER
Whether the error was harmless. Two days later his body was found in an alley in Ocean Beach. Rafael Godinez and Padilla were friends.

OPINION/ORDER
Published at 383 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) is amended as follows: on page 1097. The Supreme Court had before it a disputed warrantless search conducted by prohibition agents who were looking for contraband whiskey suspected to be in an automobile. The whiskey was finally discovered when the agents tore open the car's upholstery in the area of the car's rumble seat. The issue was whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court began its constitutional analysis of the tearing open of the upholstery by establishing for automobiles an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement: We have made a somewhat extended reference to these statutes to show that the guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment has been construed. Where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. The Court held that the warrantless tearing open of the vehicle's upholstery was not UNITED STATES v.

OPINION/ORDER
Appellant argues that the district court's determination that he had previously been

OPINION/ORDER
ASHCROFT 11973 Immigration Appeals (BIA or

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jesus Aaron Cazarez Gutierrez (

OPINION/ORDER
Is substituted for his predecessor. Is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted of first degree burglary in California state court. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft with priors. Was sentenced to three years imprisonment. A hearing before an Immigration Judge (

OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The Brief of Amici Curiae is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: At 231 F.3d 1140. Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under that same heading:

OPINION/ORDER
Mercado and Bravo were charged with: (1) violating RICO. They were found guilty of the RICO conspiracy and of the drug conspiracy. Were acquitted of the other charges. 2 the district court stated that the question was

OPINION/ORDER
That in his removal proceeding the Immigration Judge (

OPINION/ORDER
Padilla argues that his motion for new trial should have been granted because. Because the Supreme Court has pending two appeals that are likely to shed light on Blakely's effect on the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Nicholas Padilla was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Padilla's prior felony was a California state conviction in January 1997 for possession of cocaine for sale. The only disputed issue at trial was whether Padilla was in possession of the gun on January 30. Parga was the only one to see Padilla dispose of the gun. The first of those statements is challenged by Padilla in this appeal. Testified that the gun was his and that Padilla did not know that Villa had the gun when he got into Padilla's car. Villa also testified that both he and Padilla were members of the Cuatro Flats street gang. The second defense witness was Samantha Ramirez. Eagleson testified that it was his experience that gang members would not testify against one another.

OPINION/ORDER
Dissent by Judge Kozinski *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. BACKGROUND1 1 Our recitation of the facts is derived largely from Canales Vargas's testimony. We must assume that the applicant's factual contentions are true.

OPINION/ORDER
He contends that the jury was prejudiced by several confrontation and due process clause violations at trial including: (1) the improper introduction of triple hearsay statements. Was the actual killer) to evade the police. In light of the fact that the prosecution's case was based almost entirely on the eyewitness testimony of a single accusing witness who himself had the opportunity and a possible motive to commit the offense. Michael Luke was found stabbed to death in the parking lot of the Cambridge Garden Apartments in Sacramento. It was on the basis of this accusation alone that Thomas was arrested and charged with murder. 1. Who was also looking for Schwab because Schwab owed him money.1 On December 22. Either have the money or bring it back as soon as possible.

OPINION/ORDER
Both federal habeas petitions were initially timely filed in the district court by Ford proceeding pro se. Both were

OPINION/ORDER
That the California appellate court's denial of his claim was contrary to and involved an objectively unreasonable application of controlling federal law. Defendant/Appellee Gary Bradley (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The Washington Court of Appeals appointed new counsel to represent convicted defendant Reno Tamalini while his appeal was pending despite Tamalini's Sixth Amendment objection to the substitution. Whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge predicated upon the Fourteenth Amendment. We have appellate jurisdiction over Tamalini's appeal of the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 (2000). Averred that: (1)

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Masoud Hosseini is an Iranian citizen who came to the United States on a student visa. He was ordered deported as an overstay. The immigration judge also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that Hosseini had failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if deported to Iran. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (

OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to determine whether a federal defendant's previous state law conviction is for a

OPINION/ORDER
(5) whether Lyle's due process rights were violated when the prosecutor commented on the lack of evidence regarding abuse and the lack of experts. Both of which the prosecutor had successfully moved to exclude.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The theory of the prosecution supporting charges of murder was that these killings were motivated by greed and the brothers' desire to acquire by early inheritance their parents' considerable wealth. TERHUNE 12471 were the result of years of physical. Who was home from the East Coast for the summer. Lyle allegedly confronted Jose about the abuse while Erik was out of the house. Were turned away because the range did not allow shotguns. Having been told that the birdshot ammunition they had loaded into their new guns was

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. I. Factual Background The facts of the murder of Denise Williams have been recounted in numerous prior decisions in state and federal courts. 1 and are recited only briefly here. Hoffman was employed by Richard Holmes. Holmes was arrested for distributing controlled substances. After Holmes was released on bail. ARAVE 7337 and told Williams that she was

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Appellant Luis Toro Romero appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (

OPINION/ORDER
She testified at a competency hearing at which the defendant was not present. The child victim's hearsay statements about the incident of abuse were introduced through other witnesses who heard the statements. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Rodrigo Gandarela was tried in 1994 on charges of Rape in the First Degree. He was 16965 acquitted on the Rape charge and convicted on the other three charges. 1 was four years old when Gandarela allegedly molested her. Shannon S.2 was babysitting A.V. and A.V.'s elder sisters. A.V.'s mother was out of the home. The three older girls were in the bathroom for a time attempting to pull a loose baby tooth out of Lisa's mouth. While petitioner and A.V. were elsewhere in the house. Christina testified that she heard A.V. state that she was scared and saw A.V. move away from Gandarela. Christina's testimony was similar. 1 In an attempt to preserve some degree of privacy for the child victim. We refer to her only by her initials. 2 We are also using initials for the child witnesses because their last names are not material.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: When this case was last before us. Petitioner Saluja Thangaraja's petition for review was granted with respect to her asylum and withholding of removal claims. Which was opposed by the respondent. BACKGROUND Thangaraja is a Tamil native and citizen of Sri Lanka. Thangaraja was found to have

OPINION/ORDER
II (

OPINION/ORDER
We hold that Smith is entitled to equitable tolling because the district court erroneously dismissed his earlier. I. Smith was convicted of first degree burglary and sentenced to 22 years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Shortly after AEDPA was signed into law on April 24. While the state's motion to dismiss was pending. The district court held that Smith had not fairly presented this claim because the language quoted above was indecipherable. Smith explained that his difficulty in presenting his case was attributable to his lack of education and illiteracy. 2 Under AEDPA's one year grace period. This time on the ground that this final petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court held that this petition was untimely and dismissed it with prejudice. We granted a motion to expand the COA to include the issue of whether Smith was entitled to equitable tolling. Smith was entitled to statutory tolling from July 5. For reasons that are not clear from the record.

OPINION/ORDER
A California death row inmate whose execution is scheduled for Tuesday. His request for an order authorizing the district court to consider this petition his third application in the federal system following denial of his original habeas petition is premised on the existence of evidence with respect to a blood spot. Shoe print impressions that he asserts was manufactured by the state and which. Would have weakened the links in the state's chain of circumstantial evidence. This application turns on facts that have long since been known and that have already been presented and resolved adversely to Cooper in state court evidentiary hearings. To the extent that the claims are formulated differently in the petition he now asks to file. They are nevertheless based on facts that were available and could previously have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence. Cooper's petition does not set forth facts that are sufficient to show by clear and convincing evidence that. No reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offenses charged.

OPINION/ORDER
2005 is recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion as follows: The amended opinion filed July 5. Is amended as follows: 1) Slip op. at 7793 (2005 WL 1560269. Beginning

OPINION/ORDER
Young was apprehended after a highspeed car chase and charged with armed robbery and felony evasion. Young's two prior robbery convictions were submitted as

OPINION/ORDER
Because we find that Kwan's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in affirmatively misleading him as to the immigration consequences of his conviction. Are United States citizens. Kwan was indicted for two counts of bank fraud. KWAN there was technically a possibility of deportation.

OPINION/ORDER
We are called on to decide whether the Iranian trade embargo. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Masood Kalantari is a producer of television programs and a promoter of Iranian cultural events in the United States. He is a

OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The Brief of Amici Curiae is ordered filed. Is amended as follows: At 231 F.3d 1140. Add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under that same heading:

OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. Circuit Judge: At a murder trial in which the central question is whether the defendant acted in self defense. Are a defendant's constitutional rights violated when spectators are permitted to wear buttons depicting the deceased individual? That the state court was objectively unreasonable in denying this claim both on direct appeal and in the post conviction proceedings. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Musladin was charged in a California state court with first degree murder for the killing of Tom Studer. There is no dispute that Musladin fired the shot that killed Studer. Although experts for both sides agree that the fatal shot was the result of a ricochet rather than a direct hit. There was no crime and. The buttons were several inches in diameter and

OPINION/ORDER
While the sentence applicable under the Sentencing Guidelines was life. The time limits on filing a notice of appeal are

OPINION/ORDER
Because such a motion is not the equivalent of a second or successive petition under the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
The Coalition alleged that the detainees have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law. Have not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them or afforded the assistance of counsel. Are being held by the United States government in violation of the United States Constitution and the Third Geneva Convention. (3) no federal court could have jurisdiction over the writ. So there is no basis to transfer the petition to another federal district court. As the horror of these events was COALITION OF CLERGY. American forces were sent to Afghanistan and neighboring countries. Was taken on November 13. Thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants were eventually captured or surrendered. The detainees deemed most dangerous by the United States military were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The detainees are being held at the naval base in a secure facility known as Camp X Ray. They have been visited by members of the International Red Cross and diplomats from their home countries.

OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. slip op. at 13347. Insert the following footnote:

OPINION/ORDER
He was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The petition was denied. The petition was dismissed September 9. Dils was also denied a certificate of appealability (COA). This order was

OPINION/ORDER
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. BLACK The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc: Once upon a time in the West there was a special place called home.

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
Even if they themselves have a well founded fear of persecution should they return. An Immigration Judge (IJ) held that Miranda was barred from relief because he had

OPINION/ORDER
For which an 8 level enhancement was appropriate. Was not a

OPINION/ORDER
Argued the case for the respondent appellant and was on the briefs. Supervising Deputy Attorney General were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the petitionerappellee and was on the brief. California was also on the brief. That relief was predicated on Nunes' claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining process. We All further citations to Title 28 provisions will simply take the form

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:

OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that

OPINION/ORDER
The motion for reconsideration of petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED except as the opinion is hereby amended. Is amended as follows: 1) In the citations following the first sentence of the third paragraph of section II of the Discussion section. 3961 makes it

OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1) Footnote 6. Is replaced in its entirety with the following: The government has invoked only the Chevron deference doctrine. 544 (2d Cir. 2005) (

OPINION/ORDER
Sandgathe was convicted in a jury trial of assault in the second degree. To have a tooth bridge removed and repaired. Petitioner was given a mixture of nitrous oxide and oxygen. Bryson decided it was necessary to give petitioner another Xylocaine injection to stop his gums from bleeding. Sandgathe was concerned about the additional injection. Bryson assured him that the procedure was standard. Bryson thereupon warned that the police were on their way. He is acting weird.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:

OPINION/ORDER
We have sua sponte power to rehear such a denial en banc. Cooper is scheduled to be executed at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow morning. He is making a

OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals. Jacobs was the leader of the

OPINION/ORDER
Jeffrey Robert Kissner (Kissner) was convicted by a jury of three counts of criminal vehicular homicide and one count of criminal vehicular operation resulting in substantial bodily harm under Minnesota Statute § 609.21. Subds. 1 and 2(a) (1998).1 He was also found guilty of four misdemeanors: (1) careless driving in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169.13. Subds. 5(a) and 1 He was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences of nineteen. The standard of review in habeas cases is normally a deferential one. Which is

OPINION/ORDER
Duane Thiel (Thiel) was convicted by a jury for the murder of his brother. Was sentenced to fifteen years minus 249 days for time served at the North Dakota State Penitentiary. There was not a reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the trial because his character was effectively impeached. Which suggest that Hunter's testimony was indispensable to the prosecution's case because the rest of the evidence against Thiel was circumstantial and less probative of guilt.3 Thiel contends that these statements. Require a finding that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. This court is restrained from granting a habeas petition unless the adjudication

OPINION/ORDER
White was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole. White's conviction and sentence were affirmed in his initial appeal. Exculpatory evidence was withheld by the state and a claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We hold that material exculpatory evidence was withheld from White. White and five other men were involved in a robbery at the Shamrock Tavern in Davenport. Iowa.2 The bartender and two of the bar's patrons were shot and killed during the robbery. Other patrons at the bar were also injured. White was tried separately from the other defendants and raised a coercion defense at his trial. Other facts of the case are relevant to the various claims that White is pressing on appeal. The five other men involved in the robbery were Glenn McGhee. Mann was the only one not charged. The State appears to have accepted his contention that whatever part he played was coerced. Was not voluntary.3 On the morning of the second day of his trial. White's trial counsel was apparently not aware of this claim until the morning of the second day of the trial.

OPINION/ORDER
United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 1 erred in failing to rule that the state trial court violated his due process rights by allowing the admission of certain identification testimony Evans argues was tainted. We conclude that any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. We begin with the facts of the crime for which Evans was convicted. Just empty the register and no one will get hurt!

OPINION/ORDER
Jon Mills is an Arkansas inmate serving a life sentence for rape and first degree sexual abuse. We conclude that the one year limitations period was tolled while Mills attempted to appeal from the denial of state postconviction relief. Unless the time is extended by order of the trial court.

OPINION/ORDER
While this case was pending on appeal. Instead only to certain separate and discrete actions in the deportation process which are not at issue here. The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to reconsider the petition in light of Shah v.

OPINION/ORDER
In this case we are called on to decide important questions of the jurisdiction of the federal courts to review decisions of the Executive Branch with respect to immigration. Two statutes enacted in 1996 have narrowed the rights of certain classes of immigrants and restricted the jurisdiction of the federal courts to review claims raised by those immigrants. The two statutes are the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). We hold that these two statutes do not entirely preclude review on federal habeas corpus of pure questions of law raised by certain lawful permanent residents who are in custody under a final order of deportation. I. The petitioner in this case is Dinesh Keshavi Shah. He is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. He is deportable. With respect to immigrants who have suffered his kind of criminal convictions. The question comes down to this: is AEDPA Section 440(d) retroactive. The Attorney General's answer to this question is yes. That Section 440(d) is not retroactive.

OPINION/ORDER
Which was enacted as part of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
That the prosecuting attorney was guilty of misconduct in his closing argument by falsely implying that Burns. The certificate was denied with respect to other issues raised below. Which was filed in the District Court before the enactment of that statute. A petition for rehearing en banc directed to that order was denied. Tiedeman is the law of this Circuit. One panel is not free to depart from the previous holding of another. So as to enable him to argue the merits of points with respect to which the certificate was denied. The whole point of the new procedure is to limit appeals to issues on which a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right has been made. 2 2 I. The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirming Burns's conviction on direct appeal. His defense was that he was mentally impaired to such an extent as to provide him with a complete defense or. The victim informed appellant that the store owner was due back in a few minutes.

OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that no appeal properly lies as to those issues because they were not included in the certificate of appealability. Navin's petition was filed in the District Court before April 24. This is what the District Court did in its order. As we have noted. We held that the new certificate of appealability requirement applied to cases that were filed before the enactment of the new statute. Was filed after that date. The petition was filed under §2254 by a prisoner in state custody. The petition now before us was filed under §2255 by a prisoner in federal custody. Was that the 2 change in procedure was not very different from pre existing law.

OPINION/ORDER
We also will use

OPINION/ORDER
Who was in custody in Rock Island County. Gay was released on bond and subsequently attended the pretrial conference at which an October 4. 1993 trial date was set. Gay was again arrested and held in custody in Rock Island County. Gay was subsequently charged with. Gay was sentenced to a prison term not to exceed five years. We conclude the district court correctly determined that Gay was not entitled to habeas relief.

OPINION/ORDER
Samuel Lee McDonald was convicted by a jury in Missouri state court of capital murder and sentenced to death. McDonald's execution is currently scheduled for September 24. McDonald was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on February 24. We noted that McDonald had failed to demonstrate prejudice arising from his counsel's alleged 4 ineffectiveness because

OPINION/ORDER
United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 Flores&s direct appeal was pending before this court. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was filed in the district court on behalf of Flores.2 Finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the § 2255 motion while the direct appeal was pending. The district court dismissed the motion without prejudice to Flores&s right to file a § 2255 motion if his conviction was affirmed. We hold that a habeas petition which is filed after a prior petition has been dismissed without prejudice does not qualify as

OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal by Wayne Tauke. Who were seeking to arrest Mr. She was concerned about his use of alcohol and feared for his safety. Threatened them with statements such as

OPINION/ORDER
The amendments to the statute which deal with habeas corpus petitions in noncapital cases generally apply

OPINION/ORDER
The first conviction was voided as a result of juror exposure to pretrial publicity. The second conviction was invalidated when this court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas corpus relief. The third conviction is the subject of this appeal. O'Neal was found shot to death behind the counter of the family furniture store in Fort Smith. She was murdered between approximately 1:40 and 2:00 p.m. The cash register was found open and empty. A description of a lake cabin was found on the floor. O'Neal was killed by a .22 caliber pistol. Aware he was a suspect. Henderson fled to Houston where he was later arrested despite attempts to alter his appearance. Henderson admitted that he was at the murder scene but claimed he had only witnessed the murder. Claiming it was involuntary. Henderson's defense was that he had been in Springdale. At 12:00 noon the day of the murder and could not possibly have driven to 2 Fort Smith in time to commit the crime. of capital murder. As they were leaving. Henderson was assigned new counsel and was tried again.

OPINION/ORDER
That new evidence showed Cornell was actually innocent of the crime. We also held that his claim of actual innocence was procedurally defaulted. Cornell then brought a Rule 60(b) motion on the theory that Schlup worked a change in the law that would have affected the outcome of his On April 24. Cornell was convicted in Iowa state court of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for the 1976 killing of Kenneth Crow. The principal witness against Cornell was his fourteen year old half brother. Who was riding in a car with Cornell and Crow before the killing. Cornell's defense at trial was that Crow had left the car alive after an argument with Cornell and had stolen Cornell's gun. His theory was that Bryce Oliver actually had committed the killing. Which was denied. One of his grounds for relief was that Eric Lynn Cross had sent a letter to the state recanting his trial testimony. Cross was not available as a witness. Holding that the suppressed evidence was not material. Ordering an evidentiary hearing on whether the recantation was newly discovered evidence that would

OPINION/ORDER
Singleton was sentenced to death in 1979 by the Circuit Court We The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele. For capital murder arising out of the death of a storekeeper whom Singleton stabbed during the course of a robbery.3 The sentence and conviction were affirmed by the Singleton v. 456 U.S. 938 (1982). petition to proceed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure was denied without written opinion in 1982. We affirmed the district court's denial of Singleton's guilt phase Singleton was convicted under Ark. Alleging that he was incompetent to be executed and that he had not been afforded the procedural guarantees outlined in Ford v. While the state court action was pending. A case that would again have presented the issue of double counting in capital sentencing cases. An execution date was set for Singleton. Was held 3 on July 24. Who was voluntarily taking antipsychotic medication. Was competent. Rejected Singleton's double counting and actual innocence claims. unconstitutional double It is from the denial of his claim of counting that Singleton now appeals.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge. *Circuit Judges Bright and Henley are Circuit Judges on senior status. I. Background In 1983 a jury convicted Bannister of the capital murder of Darrell Reustman and he was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were His motions for state postaffirmed on direct appeal. 471 U.S. 1009 (1985). conviction relief were denied. As was a section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Holding that the claims in it were either demonstrated prejudice under Wainwright v. Because we hold that Bannister is not entitled to relief under the prior more lenient habeas law. We do not address the state's contention that the Act is applicable to this appeal and precludes relief. 22 1 as to permit habeas review.3 Mo. While Bannister's appeal was pending. As the District Court determines is necessary and proper.

OPINION/ORDER
Feltrop was convicted of murdering and dismembering his live in girlfriend. We gave deference to the state court determination that he was not

OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Richard Dennis Oxford's execution is scheduled for 12:01 a.m. For what clearly are The purely tactical reasons. The motion is denied. Is the basis for overturning the procedural bar to Oxford's claims found by this Court in Oxford v. Could have been raised in Oxford's recently concluded second habeas petition. 489 (1991). Oxford's motion to authorize the filing of his third habeas petition is denied. His motion for a stay of execution is denied. I dissent. of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that have never been addressed 2 As I expressed in my original dissent in this case. Oxford's counsel was ineffective at the sentencing proceedings because he failed to present mitigating evidence as to why Oxford should not be sentenced to death. His trial counsel presented virtually no mitigating

OPINION/ORDER
Although an ambulance was summoned during the ensuing melee. Ragland was tried and convicted of first degree felony murder. Was the appropriate sentence.2 Ragland appealed both his conviction and his sentence. Who was 17 at the time of the crime. The court noted that Ragland's record of assaults stretched from when he was nine years old. Was still hospitalized at the time of Ragland's sentencing. Id. 2 2 postconviction actions were also unsuccessful. 920 (Iowa Ct. Was an integral part of the homicide is without merit. that crime only. even when a There is no double jeopardy issue because Ragland was convicted of one crime only. Double jeopardy is not implicated convictions and punishment for both the pursues denied. So long as the defendant is prosecuted for both offenses in one trial and the state legislature has authorized cumulative punishments. That a lesser crime is We note that Ragland apparently did not raise the alleged inadequacy of the jury instructions until after his conviction. The companion argument that in this case there can be no felony murder because the murder was accomplished by one blow not only lacks merit but is.

OPINION/ORDER
It is locally operated and staffed by local employees. Is subject to HUD approval. Which was reviewed by HUD. The eligibility technician is identified as the individual who determines whether a particular housing applicant meets federally imposed threshold criteria. Hang screened applications to verify whether persons were initially qualified or entitled to any preferences for low income housing. HUD did not have any direct role in paying Hang or conducting his If an applicant qualifies for a preference. He will receive more desirable placement on the waiting list for federally subsidized housing. 2 2 performance reviews. Used his bilingual skills to prey on housing applicants who were also immigrants from Southeast Asian countries. Hang apparently communicated to these unfortunate and vulnerable victims that they would have to pay him money in order to obtain federally subsidized housing. Was taking some sort of medication. When police officials notified the court that Hang's friends and relatives were terrorizing certain individuals who had testified against the convicted felon.

OPINION/ORDER
Pederson also alleges he was denied due process and deprived of a fair trial because one juror stated during voir dire that she would faithfully apply the law but averred post trial that she failed to extend to Pederson a presumption of innocence. Pederson is currently serving a life sentence for his crimes. The facts of the underlying offense and the evidence presented at trial are set forth in detail in the opinion from Pederson's direct state appeal. Additional details surrounding the procedural history of this case are provided in opinions from an appeal of a first denial of postconviction relief. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 2 Anderson was the thirty two year old neighbor of Stephen Dean. Anderson's body was found in Anderson's home the night following his murder. Anderson was face down in a pool of blood and appeared to have been beaten with a blunt object. Bloody footprints were located near Anderson's body. They received a call that people were disturbing the crime scene.

OPINION/ORDER
Guinn was convicted of first degree robbery. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. His motion filed in state court for postconviction relief was The Honorable Gary A. The evidence at trial was that Lori Clanin was returning to her apartment at 3434 Gillham in Kansas City. She was taking groceries from her car when she was approached by two men. Clanin thought he was about to shoot her. Clanin was hit and injured. Clanin and a police detective used a computer program to create a composite sketch of her assailant that was published in The Kansas City Star and The Kansas City Call. Clanin was unable to identify her assailant from among those photographs. She was able to identify a photograph of Guinn as that person. Guinn's photograph was included in another array presented to Clanin. Clanin's stolen purse was found in the bathtub of an unoccupied apartment near 2 E. That is. Guinn is not entitled to habeas relief unless he can show that the state court adjudication of his claims

OPINION/ORDER
Broderick Collier was convicted in Arkansas state court of first degree murder and sentenced to 44 years' imprisonment. Adam Wilstead was driving past 2205 Walker Street in Little Rock. When shots were fired into his car. Collier was charged with first degree murder as an accomplice. Neeley was never charged. A. The Trial Proceedings Dixie Griffin was the only witness at trial who testified to seeing Collier and Neeley commit the murder. Who was then engaged and later married to Collier. The women feared that the car was planning a drive by shooting. Dixie Griffin testified at trial that she did not tell the police that Collier was one of the shooters because Lisa Pike was her best friend and she feared reproach from Collier. Bell testified that he lived and was present at 2205 Walker Street at the time of the Wilstead murder. He testified that after the car drove by a few times Lisa Pike went into her room where there was a telephone. Bell was in the kitchen when he heard gunshots. Hinerman's testimony revealed that he arrived home from work after the murder and while the police were on the scene conducting their investigation.

OPINION/ORDER
Which was upheld by the Iowa Court of Appeals on direct appeal and in post conviction proceedings. Byron Morales made an emergency call to 911 and reported that his two year old son2 Kevin was unresponsive. Kevin was unresponsive. Was having trouble breathing. The right side of his head was swollen. Who was the surgeon leading the trauma team. Who was the radiologist that interpreted the CT scan. Initially agreed that Kevin's death was caused by an existing. Hematoma on his brain that was reinjured by some event that day. Bennett concluded that Kevin's brain injuries were acute. United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 2 Kevin was born to Morales's wife and adopted by Morales. 2 injuries were all inflicted on the day of his death. Morales was arrested and charged with Murder in the First Degree. Berkland did not at that time have the medical reports of the emergency room physicians who diagnosed the hematoma as chronic in nature. Bennett that the injuries to Kevin's brain were acute.

OPINION/ORDER
His case was set for a hearing before an IJ in St. While there was no question that his lawyer had received notice of the hearing. She failed to mention it when Habchy was in her office the day before the hearing was scheduled to take place. The IJ denied his motion on three alternative grounds: (1) it was untimely. (2) even if it was timely. (3) even if the IJ were to construe it as a proper second motion to reopen. Which he would have to do in order to consider the new evidentiary materials. It was not clear whether the letter that Habchy sent to the state bar constituted a

OPINION/ORDER
His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal and his motion for post conviction relief was denied. Smulls was charged with first degree murder. For the record was a black female. Sidney are based both upon what I observed during our voir dire and based upon my experience in trying criminal lawsuits. Which has exceeded 50 cases in this courthouse including several cases before this Court in the nine years that I have been a prosecuting attorney. Sidney was very silent during all of the questioning. I observed at one point during my questioning concerning the death penalty a glare on her face as I was questioning that area. She was seated in the back row. The only response I was able to get out of Ms. Sidney today was when I asked her about her occupation. At first she responded with what I though [sic] was a very irritated answer. She indicated that she is a mail sorter for Monsanto 2 Company. Post Office with great suspicion in that they have generally in my experience in many of the trials that I've had are very disgruntled.

OPINION/ORDER
Thomas Wayne Evenstad was convicted in Minnesota state court of first and third degree criminal sexual conduct for the rape of eighteen year old H.S. Evenstad's direct appeal and petition for post conviction relief were denied. Which was denied. Evenstad was convicted of raping H.S. Evenstad was found guilty by a trial jury. Evenstad argued he was entitled to relief as: 1) he had evidence A.M. 2 presented false trial testimony. Evidence of prior bad acts is typically referred to as Spreigl evidence. A witness testifying to said bad acts is called a Spreigl witness. Spreigl evidence is governed by Minnesota Rule of Evidence 404(b). 22 testified she heard A.M. 2 say her trial testimony was false. J.A. recanted her story and those charges against Evenstad based on her accusations were dropped. J.A. did not testify at trial and evidence of her identification of Evenstad was not presented at trial. A new trial is warranted if: 1) the evidence was not known to the defendant or his counsel at the time of the trial.

OPINION/ORDER
Keith Buchheit was one of three men charged with beating another man to death. After one of his co defendants was convicted and sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. He was not aware of a statute that required persons convicted of certain felonies. Buchheit and his father that

OPINION/ORDER
The district court1 held the policy was The Honorable Thomas D. DBE is in the business of radio and television broadcasting. A construction crew was onsite replacing the braces. Workers removed two of the braces but failed to put in place temporary braces to support the structure while the reconstruction was underway. DBE was notified by its insurance carrier it would no longer be insuring radio/television towers. DBE advised Royal it was in the process of modifying the Hemingford tower and expected the work to be completed by late fall. The policy covering the Hemingford tower was delivered September 17. It is undisputed DBE did not read the policy during the next seven days when the tower collapsed. 2 DBE submitted a claim to Royal and it denied coverage. Royal based its denial on several exclusions not included in the proposal only two of which are relevant to this appeal. Royal's policy excluded coverage for towers

OPINION/ORDER
Don William Davis was convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. His petition for postconviction relief in state court was denied. Jane Daniel was found dead in her home from a shot to the back of her head. Several items of jewelry and other property were missing from the home. Davis was charged in an information with capital murder. Davis was declared indigent by the state trial court and pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Arkansas law requires a trial court to suspend proceedings and order an examination when a defendant's mental disease or defect becomes or is likely to become an issue. To examine Davis and to submit a report as to whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Davis was insane then or at the time of the offense. Jenkins concluded that while there was no evidence that Davis was incompetent or psychotic. There was evidence of residual attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

OPINION/ORDER
Stanley Carter Liggins was convicted in Iowa state court of first degree murder in the death of nine year old Jennifer Lewis. Liggins's direct appeal and state petition for post conviction relief were denied. United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 I The burned body of nine year old Jennifer Lewis was found on the grounds of Jefferson Elementary School in Davenport. A medical examination revealed her death was caused by manual strangulation. She had been sexually abused prior to death and was not alive at the time her body was burned. Liggins was charged in Iowa state court with first degree murder. The jury found Liggins guilty on all remaining counts and he was sentenced to three life terms and a term not to exceed ten years on the willful injury conviction. The jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. 2 In his direct appeal following the second trial. Liggins argued the state lacked territorial jurisdiction over the murder charge because there was no proof the murder occurred in Iowa.

OPINION/ORDER
Roberts was tried. Roberts stated that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. Roberts was brought before the trial court where he reaffirmed his desire not to pursue postconviction relief. At the time that the stay was entered. The district court's stay order was for only ninety days. By allowing a defendant who had not expressly declared his desire to

OPINION/ORDER
Robert Osborne was convicted of rape following a jury trial in Missouri state court. His conviction and the denial of his motion for post trial relief were upheld by the Missouri Court of Appeals. Osborne was tried in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County on May 57. The state's principal witness was seventeen year old R.S. When she was thirteen years old. R.S. went into the living room where Osborne was watching television and laid herself down on the couch. Osborne told R.S. that he was sorry for raping her and that he had been drinking at the time. R.S. testified that the rape was not the only time that Osborne sexually assaulted her. Osborne attempted to sodomize her while she was doing laundry in the basement of the house. When he was unable to do so. These findings are consistent with R.S. having had sexual intercourse. A state prisoner who believes that he is incarcerated in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).2 In the interests of finality and federalism.

OPINION/ORDER
Steven Anthony Sera was convicted by an Arkansas jury on eight criminal counts related to his use of Rohypnol. The District Court granted Sera's petition on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of rape. One of the women was Mrs. Charges were brought against Sera in Arkansas. We are called upon here only to address Sera's conviction in Arkansas for the rape of Deal. After hearing that a lumber mill was closing in Warren. Prompting Deal to ask what was taking him so long. Sera replied that he was mixing himself a drink. Sera drove her to the bed and breakfast at which he was staying in Warren. While Deal was unconscious and without her consent. These actions were recorded on the videotape found by Mrs. Her cousin testified that Deal

OPINION/ORDER
Jeffrey Ferguson was convicted and sentenced to death in state court for the abduction. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 of appealability was granted on two issues: whether the district court erred in denying. Naked body was discovered on a nearby farm three weeks after a witness saw a man resembling Ferguson forcing her into a truck identical to Ferguson's vehicle outside the service station on the night she disappeared. An autopsy revealed that Hall had been raped before she was strangled to death. Were seen with Ferguson's truck across the street from the service station shortly before Hall was abducted. Ferguson warned a potential purchaser that the rings were

OPINION/ORDER
This Court will refer to the petitioner as Hardin El. BACKGROUND Hardin El is serving a life sentence and two concurrent ten year terms pursuant to state jury verdicts of first degree murder. The court briefly discussed with Hardin El whether he was willing to proceed only on the two grounds raised by his appointed counsel in the amended petition.

OPINION/ORDER
An entry of judgment convicting Melvin Shoemate of rape was filed in Arkansas state court on May 8. Because it was not filed by Shoemate or a licensed attorney. Shoemate then attempted to file a Rule 37 petition for post conviction relief under the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 The Arkansas courts found that Shoemate's petition for post conviction relief was not timely since the motion for belated appeal did not constitute a direct appeal within the meaning of Rule 37. Shoemate was thus required to file his petition for postconviction relief within ninety days of the entry of judgment. The district court2 found that Shoemate's Rule 37 petition was not timely filed in the Arkansas courts under § 2244(d)(2) of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (

OPINION/ORDER
Ryan also alleges that he was not competent to stand trial or proceed with his habeas corpus proceeding. We address in detail only facts that are relevant to these issues. Judge Finn was to sentence Ryan for both the first degree murder of Thimm and the second degree murder of Stice. The case was referred to retired Judge Dewayne Wolf. Concluding that Ryan was not 3 prejudiced by the ex parte meeting between Judge Finn and the Stice family. The court held that it had addressed the ex parte meeting issue on direct appeal and that Ryan was not entitled to relitigate the same issues in a post conviction proceeding. It was not evident whether Ryan had exhausted all of the state court remedies available to him regarding a meeting between Judge Finn and members of the Thimm family.2 Accordingly. Moran was appointed to hear the motion. Such a meeting must have occurred. That any claims related to the May 9 meeting were procedurally barred because Ryan and his counsel knew or reasonably should have known about the May 9 meeting during the direct appeal and the first post conviction proceedings.

OPINION/ORDER
Rodney Clay Evans was convicted of first degree murder in Missouri and was sentenced to life in prison for killing his estranged wife. He filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) habeas corpus petition by which he sought to have his conviction vacated. Our review of these claims is governed by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Pursuant to which we may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any issue decided by a state court unless the state court's decision

OPINION/ORDER
In this case we are asked to answer a question about the interaction of the federal one year statute of limitations on habeas corpus petitions. This question was alluded to. I. Some procedural history is necessary for an understanding of the issues presented. Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of multiple felony offenses. The sentence was life in prison. Judgment was entered on January 21. No timely appeal was taken. Such appeals are permitted in some cases by Ark. Were over. (This was the ground asserted in support of the petition.). Watts's Rule 37 petition was untimely. That he was thus procedurally barred from proceeding under that rule. The Court said: This Court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. . . . Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule is untimely if not filed within ninety days of the date judgment was entered if the convicted defendant did not appeal from the judgment.

OPINION/ORDER
Ronnie Ladale Anderson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment. Bald trucker was stopped on the shoulder of eastbound Interstate 80. The witnesses varied in their descriptions of what he was doing with the gun. Some said he was walking towards another stopped truck. Some said he was waving the gun. The witnesses' descriptions of the truck were the same. They offered slightly different descriptions of what was written on the trailer. Called 911 and told the dispatcher a black trucker had been on the radio threatening a female trucker who was also driving through the Des Moines area. Schmidt told the dispatcher the suspect threatened Schmidt and others and was driving eastbound on Interstate 80. 2 called back a second time and told the dispatchers the suspect was back on the road. The caller was talking to the suspect on the radio at the same time he was on the phone to the dispatcher. Officers from three police departments were dispatched to the area and in short order spotted a truck with a maroon cab pulling a white trailer with

OPINION/ORDER
Who was one of his The Honorable Mark W. United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 drug suppliers and who was also romantically involved with his sister. While Mingo Flores was riding in a car. Huerta was taken to the hospital and survived. Flores was 17 years old at the time of the attack. They obtained a search warrant for the apartment where he was living. A state charge of attempted murder was dropped when Flores agreed that he would plead guilty to a reduced charge of terrorism after his federal sentencing. Determined that he was in criminal history category IV. The court stated that even though he was only 18 years old at the time of sentencing. Was

OPINION/ORDER
Lazaro Borrero is an inadmissible alien subject to a final order of removal. Will not accept his return. He was held in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) upon his release from prison on state drug and firearms charges on September 11. He was released from INS custody on January 4. I. The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. Borrero is a citizen of Cuba who arrived at the border of the United States in 1980 during the Mariel boatlift. Borrero was convicted of simple battery in 1983. Borrero was convicted of possession and sale of cocaine and possession of a pistol by a felon. While Borrero was in state custody on his 1993 convictions. Borrero was released from state custody into the custody of the INS. The Associate Commissioner was unable to conclude that Borrero's parole would be in the public interest. Absent a significant likelihood that Borrero 2

OPINION/ORDER
David Flores was convicted of first degree murder. Flores was circumstantially identified as the driver of the Blazer. Flores is Latino. A black Blazer with a gold grill was seen at the shooting location just before the shooting. The Blazer was seen driving in the direction of Flores's house just after the event. Spent .22 shell casings were found near the shooting. A .22 round was recovered from Davis's body. The expert further testified that there was a

OPINION/ORDER
An alien who illegally reenters this country after a prior deportation violates 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and is subject to imprisonment for not more than two years. The Guidelines offense levels for illegal reentry offenses are found in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Alcaras and Gomez concede their prior crimes were aggravated felonies for purposes of § 1326(b)(2). The 2 district court1 determined that each was a felony crime of violence and imposed the sixteen level enhancement in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). The issue is whether the defendants' prior convictions require a sixteen level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). That guideline provides: If the defendant previously was deported. After (A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. The defendants' prior convictions do not fall within this guideline unless they were felonies and crimes of violence. Crime of violence is defined in application note 1(B)(ii) to § 2L1.2. Alcaras was sentenced by the HONORABLE HAROLD D.

OPINION/ORDER
Flanders contends that because he is

OPINION/ORDER
Wright was convicted of drug and firearm charges and received two consecutive life sentences. The statute provides that AEDPA's one year statute of limitations is tolled while a habeas petitioner exhausts state court remedies for his federal habeas claims. Wright's one year period was first tolled until June 15. Ninety days after his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. His motion for state post conviction relief was pending. So the federal limitations period was further tolled during the pendency of that state court proceeding. Criminal Appellate Rule 2(e) permits the Supreme Court of Arkansas to

OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Simmons was convicted in a single trial of two counts of capital murder following the deaths of Leonora McClendon and Cheri Johnson. The Missouri Supreme court then overturned the two convictions on the grounds that the murder charges should not have been tried together. Simmons was tried separately for both murders. He was convicted and sentenced to death after each trial. Although these two appeals were filed separately and heard back to back by this court. We have consolidated the discussion of Simmons's claims in a single opinion. 2 1 State v. DISCUSSION Our consideration of Simmons's appeals is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994 & Supp.1998). The writ may issue only if . . . the state court adjudication resulted in a decision that (1) `was contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law. A federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct The facts underlying Simmons's convictions are discussed extensively in the opinions of the Missouri Supreme Court.

OPINION/ORDER
I. Although certificates of appealability are usually issued only when there is a

OPINION/ORDER
He further argues the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to convict him of sodomy. He was denied his constitutional right to confront the victim at trial. He was denied effective assistance of counsel. The victim was Sexton's minor stepdaughter. Sexton was again charged with one count of rape and five counts of sodomy.1 R.C. testified that Sexton's abuse began shortly after her mother married him. When R.C. was nine years old. The abuse usually occurred when R.C.'s mother was at work. R.C. testified that Sexton demanded oral sex three to four times a week from the time she was approximately ten years old until she reported the abuse in November of 1992. Justifying the measure as a means of preventing pregnancy if R.C. were ever raped. Missouri law at the time defined sodomy as

OPINION/ORDER
Veal was fourteen years old at the time of her arrest. Was transferred from juvenile court to district court for trial. Veal was convicted of firstdegree murder in May 1994. While her motion for new trial was pending. Veal argued that she was denied a fair tribunal as evidenced by the aforementioned ex parte social contact between the trial judge and members of the county attorney's office. We have emphasized

OPINION/ORDER
This petition was denied in April 1997. Which was denied on February 14. We hold that his claims are successive and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). We have evaluated three of Thompson's petitions for post conviction relief in the past. All three petitions are the result of Thompson's conviction in 1984 of first degree murder for the death of a police officer. The history of these petitions is discussed in detail in our 1994 decision affirming the District Court's decision to deny one of Thompson's petitions for post conviction relief. This discussion will focus only on Thompson's present motion to recall our mandate. Thompson's primary contention is that this Court should recall its mandate because of a recent Supreme Court decision. The Court was presented with the question of whether a state is required to apply a

OPINION/ORDER
The primary question presented on appeal is whether the state trial The Honorable Richard H. United States District Judge for the District of Missouri. 2 1 court erred in failing to suppress eyewitness identification evidence that was the product of a purportedly suggestive

OPINION/ORDER
The district court neglected to resolve whether Chad Grady's § 2255 motion was timely filed. Concluding that Grady's constitutional rights were violated when he appeared for two hours before a jury venire panel in jail clothes. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Grady's motion was timely filed. Grady was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute. Grady also indicated that he had provided prison officials with the proper amount of prepaid postage. 2 The government argued that Grady's affidavit should not be credited because it was impossible for a piece of prisoner mail to languish for 17 days (from April 22 until May 9. Malone noted that Grady claimed to have deposited his § 2255 motion in the prison's

OPINION/ORDER
The principal issue is whether the district court should have The HONORABLE DAVID S. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 equitably tolled the one year limitations period during the time Jihad was

OPINION/ORDER
The district court granted the motion on the sole ground that Rule 29.16 was not in effect on June 30. There are important differences between Calderon and this case. Calderon was a purported class action affecting numerous California death row inmates. Respondent argues there is no case or controversy because Skillicorn has not yet filed a federal habeas petition. That is of no significance. The filing of a habeas petition is not required to confer postconviction jurisdiction over a state inmate in federal court. Skillicorn's motion for injunctive and declaratory relief was inconsistent with Calderon. It was a sound exercise of the court's discretion to address the applicability of Chapter 154 early in the habeas case. Because this is an important issue that may require a

OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner was convicted by a jury for murder and sentenced to death by the state court judge after the jury failed to reach a decision on punishment. To apply correctly Missouri's statutory scheme for imposing the death penalty was plain error and deprived petitioner of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Petitioner cross appeals from the District Court's rejection of his claim that his Fourteenth Amendment right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the trial judge's refusal to re poll the jury after a juror changed his mind as to guilt during the penalty phase of the trial. I. Petitioner was charged with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action for the April 17. Petitioner shot one victim while the victim was on his knees. Petitioner presented several witnesses who testified that he was a peaceful. Denying that he shot the victims and claiming that his statement to the police was induced by promises and threats. The jury was dismissed for the day at 4:55 p.m.

OPINION/ORDER
The Warden appeals that part of the order granting Hunt leave to file a third amended petition that will relate back to the date of his second amended petition after he exhausts state remedies on certain claims included in his first amended petition. Hunt was later resentenced to life in prison. Hunt made several claims that he had not raised in his state post conviction proceedings.3 Because Hunt's petition was

OPINION/ORDER
Gassler Jr. appeals the District Court's1denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The facts are undisputed. Gassler was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder in a Minnesota state court. He was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years and a maximum of life in prison. Gassler was transferred to a federal correctional facility at Oxford. Gassler that the trial transcript was state owned property and could not be provided to him while he remained in an out of state correctional facility. Gassler was also advised that the trial transcript would be sent to him. Which was dismissed. Which was dismissed on October 1. Gassler was transferred back to a Minnesota state correctional facility. Gassler should have filed his petition by April 24. 2 the case was remanded to the District Court for a determination of whether or not a Certificate of Appealability (COA) should issue. The District Court granted a COA on the sole issue of whether or not the petition was timely.

OPINION/ORDER
Harris was subsequently charged with sale of a controlled substance. Harris argued that 2 disclosure of the informant's identity was necessary because. Harris was convicted after a jury trial of a class B felony of a sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. Counsel was appointed to represent Harris and on January 5. Harris' petition was initially referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lewis M.

OPINION/ORDER
Jeremy Jason Mann was charged with abducting a seven year old girl. He was convicted at a bench trial of first degree kidnaping and attempted murder. The judge recused himself from the state post conviction proceedings (in which his own alleged bias was to be an issue). The most substantial of which are directed to the fairness of his bench trial. He claims that the trial judge could not have been impartial. Not all of the facts are relevant to the issues presently before the Court. Mann's offense is necessary. The victim was walking home from elementary school when Mr. When she was dressed again. Which was then running nearly at flood level. Mann was brought in that night for questioning. Many of the facts recited in the confession were corroborated by the testimony of the victim and of the people to whom she had contemporaneously told her story. Was found near the place where she had climbed from the river. 2 Mr. He was informed by counsel that the United States Constitution and the law of Iowa gave him a right to make the state obtain the unanimous vote of a jury in order to convict him.

OPINION/ORDER
Who is serving a twenty five to fifty year sentence on his conviction in a Nebraska state court on a charge of first degree sexual assault. I. The facts of this case are set out more fully in Newman I. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in holding that offering the voice exemplar would have waived Newman's Fifth Amendment rights. Because an accent was easily manipulated by a speaker and because the conditions under which the victim heard her attacker's voice could not be replicated. Was so unreliable as to be inadmissible under Nebraska's evidentiary rules. We concluded that the Nebraska Supreme Court's ruling was in effect a per se exclusion of voice exemplar evidence that infringed on Newman's right to present his defense and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to grant the habeas petition and order that Newman be released or be given a new trial. 2 II. The sole question before us on remand is whether. The Court announced the more elaborate Williams standard: A state prisoner may obtain federal habeas relief with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court only through a showing that the state court's decision was either (1) contrary to.

OPINION/ORDER
Painter was convicted of first degree robbery in Iowa state court on February 16. Painter's appeal was dismissed as frivolous on November 2. That the action was barred because the one year statute of limitations period had run. The limitation is tolled during

OPINION/ORDER
Abdullah argues his guilty plea was involuntary and unintelligent. Background Abdullah was arrested on July 17. The weapon was found in a bedroom under a bed sheet. Was charged by a federal grand jury in an eighteen count indictment. He argued his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because his counsel provided inaccurate advice. After Abdullah's request for rehearing was denied. Are not subject to COA requirements. Arguing his entire guilty plea was neither knowing nor voluntary. The Court subsequently recognized in Bousley that a pre Bailey conviction pursuant to a plea agreement would be constitutionally defective if a defendant was misinformed of the elements of § 924(c)(1). Although the government concedes that Abdullah's § 924(c) conviction is invalid after Bailey and Bousley. It argues we are prohibited from reaching the merits of his claim because Abdullah did not present his Bailey/Bousley challenge on direct appeal or in the § 2255 proceedings below. The government argues the claim is barred by AEDPA's one year limitations period.2 The government also maintains that we are precluded from reaching any issues raised by Abdullah on appeal because no COA was issued.

OPINION/ORDER
Before the court is Joseph Amrine's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Amrine was convicted in 1986 for murdering a fellow prisoner. He was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court. As was the denial of post conviction relief. He filed this petition for federal habeas relief in 1990 and an amended petition in 1991.1 The federal Amrine's petition thus predated the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 1 district court2 denied habeas relief in 1996 on the basis that his claims were either procedurally barred or without merit. That motion was granted by this court en banc. Finding that the new evidence was not reliable and that Amrine therefore could not make out a claim of actual innocence. The order was not forwarded to this court and not until March 2000 were we able to obtain a copy. Was stabbed to death in a prison recreation room on October 18. Amrine was charged with the crime. Inmate Terry Russell testified that relations between Amrine and Barber were tense because of the rumors and that Amrine had confronted Barber and threatened him about a week before the murder.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
The government petitioned the district court to 1 This appeal was decided by a brief order issued under seal on September 25. This is that opinion. This opinion was issued initially in typescript. 2003 Order and the opinion were published in typescript seven days later on October 3. We will refer to this witness as the

OPINION/ORDER
Michael McKevitt is being prosecuted in Ireland for membership in a banned organization and directing terrorism. He asked the district court for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to produce tape recordings that he thinks will be useful to him in the crossexamination of David Rupert. 03 2754 motion is the key witness for the prosecution. Its order is directed against a group of journalists who have a contract to write Rupert's biography and who in the course of their research for the biography interviewed him. The tape recordings that they made of the interviews and are in their possession are the recordings sought in McKevitt's motion. The recordings were turned over to McKevitt. He would have memorialized the information contained in them and the information would inevitably become public at his trial. The appeal was not yet moot. There is no irregularity in a court's explaining the ground of a decision after the decision itself has been made ending the case. Provided the materials are not privileged.

OPINION/ORDER
We have consolidated for decision two petitions to review decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying asylum. Are related in suggesting. We stated forthrightly:

OPINION/ORDER
Were indicted on charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud. The alleged fraud involved billing for services that were not provided (ghost billing). Overstating what services were provided (upcoding). After one of the mail fraud counts was dismissed. A new trial was ordered for all but these two counts. Mitrione was sentenced to a term of 23 months and DeVore to 15 months. Restitution for each was set at $11. We will mention only those that have arguable merit. Are presented in the light most favorable to the verdict. Who was his assistant at the time. CPTs are listed in a book of codes used for medical billing which is published by the American Medical Association. The handbook for physicians provided: The provision of psychiatric services is limited . . . and must be personally provided by the physician who submits charges. Etc. are not reimbursable. Is a

OPINION/ORDER
Contending that his state conviction for sexual assault and attempted armed robbery was procured in violation of the Constitution. He also argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution. Pruitt was sentenced to natural life imprisonment. Arguing that prosecutors were impermissibly exercising the challenges to strike prospective jurors based on their gender. Should Sims have then failed to appear at trial. She would have forfeited the $5. 000 and would fur No. 02 4100 3 ther have been subject to arrest and imprisonment. Neither the existence of the agreement nor the appearance bond was disclosed to Pruitt. Challenging the legality of his conviction on four grounds: (1) that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. (2) that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. (4) that the prosecution failed to disclose that the key witness against him was compelled to appear at his trial by a $5. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's decision was not contrary to federal law.

OPINION/ORDER
Which after Executive Order 13224 was amended by the USA PATRIOT Act. The provision underlying this action is §1702(a)(1)(B). The blocking order was an interim step pending investigation. The freeze on December 14 was accompanied by a search of GRF 's headquarters. One element of relief that GRF requested was an injunction against the extension. Because the designation is a fait accompli. To the extent that GRF was attacking the factual support for the interim order. The right question now is whether the designation of October 18 is supported by adequate information. What is more. Which was issued before enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act. Could not have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury those powers added to the IEEPA by the new law. The change that potentially affected this case was the addition to §1702(a)(1)(B) of language authorizing asset freezes pending investigation. Now that the investigative stage is over. It is correspondingly inappropriate for us to decide whether Executive Order 13224 delegates powers enacted after September 23.

OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Earl Wilson was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Earl Wilson was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court found that the habeas petition was time barred. Wilson's petition was then dismissed as untimely. The statute also provides that the time during which an application for post conviction relief is

OPINION/ORDER
This case is before us on a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Appellant Johnnie Brown (

OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that

OPINION/ORDER
We have now done so. We have concluded that the judgment of the District Court conditionally granting the writ of habeas corpus must be reversed in light of Visciotti and subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. 2 I Nos. 00 3834. Was unsuccessful. We recognized that a comparative analysis is not required under Batson. We held that when this kind of comparative evidence is actually presented by Nos. 00 3834. Henderson's case was governed by the latter rule. Henderson was among those whose death sentence was commuted to life in prison without parole. The specific question in Visciotti was whether the California state courts had erred when they rejected a claim of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Henderson argued that our decision was entirely consistent with Visciotti and asked us to reaffirm our original judgment. He responded on May 12 that his sentence was indeed now one of life in prison. We have therefore proceeded with the merits of the remand. Review under this statute is

OPINION/ORDER
Samuel Baraseinde Johnson is a Nigerian who came to this country in 1984 as a student. In 1989 he was granted temporary resident status. He is married to a United States citizen and has two sons who are also citizens of this country. One of his sons is in grade school. The other is a student at Dartmouth College. There is a dark side: Johnson is also a convicted felon. He was sentenced to serve a term of 5 years in prison. The record does not show the length of time Johnson was actually imprisoned. Formal proceedings commenced in 1995 when the INS filed an order to show cause why Johnson should not be deported (the former name of removal) because he was an aggravated felon who committed a drug trafficking crime. Johnson was eligible to apply for a waiver. His chances of obtaining one might have been pretty good: between 1989 and 1995. § 212(c) relief was granted to over 10. Johnson was before an immigration judge on charges of deportability. Soriano held that § 440(d) of AEDPA (expanding the list of offenses which prevent a waiver of deportation) was effective upon enactment and that Congress intended the section to apply to aliens already in proceedings on that date April 24.

OPINION/ORDER
These comments were quoted by the Illinois Appellate Court and are contained in the record before this Court: 2 The reversal had no impact on Bartlett's total sentence. Sheppard [Defendant's counsel] has spent a lot of time telling you about how Johnathan [sic] Bartlett is cloaked with the presumption of innocence. The burden we have is beyond a reasonable doubt. Shlifka: It's not like a brick wall at all where you have to remove every single brick. Do you have a doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. The prosecution was not alone. The prosecution's

OPINION/ORDER
The question presented by this appeal is whether a taxpayer can ever have standing under Article III of the Constitution to litigate an alleged violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause unless Congress has earmarked money for the program or activity that is challenged. Would have been correct in his thinking under an earlier view of Article III's limitation of the federal judicial power to deciding

OPINION/ORDER
The trial court's decision was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Finding that the alleged ineffective assistance of Taylor's trial attorney was not prejudicial to his case. Since the evidence against Taylor at trial was overwhelming. Were robbed at gunpoint in their apartment at 2326 North 45th Street in Milwaukee. Rena and Steven informed the investigating officers that while they were entertaining guests. They were unable to locate any suspects at that time. The prosecution's first witness was Rena Lee who testified that the robbers entered her apartment shortly 1 The items allegedly stolen from the Lee's residence included a VCR. While six people were present in the home. She was in her bedroom when the robbers entered. She stated that there were four or five intruders. As he was a friend of her other son Marvin.2 Rena also recognized

OPINION/ORDER
It held that the records were exempt from the Privacy Act's amendment requirements. That 1 maintain

OPINION/ORDER
Abdelhadi Hor was ordered removed from the United States after his claim of asylum was denied. On the ground that the probability that he could persuade the merits panel to reverse the order of removal was low. Is authorized to reexamine a ruling made by a motions panel. Hor is an Algerian with a technical background who before coming to the United States on a visitor's visa in 2000 was the chief information officer for a large governmentowned manufacturer. He was also an active member of the FLN. In March of 2000 he was stopped at a roadblock set up by members of GIA (Groupe islamique armé). The military wing of the radical Islamic movement that is engaged in what amounts to a civil war with the Algerian government. Hor was ordered to furnish the organization with a list of active members of the FLN and with the security plan of his employer. He was released after promising to comply. As Hor was. Hor was stopped at another GIA roadblock. Armed men ordered him to lie down on the ground and told him they were going to execute him on the spot in retaliation for his having failed to supply the GIA with the promised information.

OPINION/ORDER
Are seeking asylum in this country because of severe mistreatment they received as Catholics in the midst of that prominently Islamic country. We have consolidated the two petitions for argument and decision. He was authorized to remain in the country until June 9. Whose functions were largely taken over by the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Gomes's application must have been filed more than one year after his arrival. The one year time limit for such applications was added by Title VI of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The Gomeses admitted that they had stayed in the United States longer than their visas permitted and conceded that they were subject to removal. Gomes testified that he was born into a staunchly Catholic family and had been both an active member of the Catholic community and a volunteer with a number of Christian organizations since the 1980s. He was struck from behind and rendered unconscious. He was seriously injured in the attack: his jaw was broken.

OPINION/ORDER
In the belief that his trial and appellate lawyers were ineffective in several ways. On the ground that it was In accordance with FED. We have substituted the current warden of Stateville Correctional Center. That his federal habeas corpus petition was filed in time and that Smith is entitled to pursue it in the district court. Smith was represented by Attorney Lawrence Vance. Vance began by telling the judge that the evidence would show that Smith was home on the evening in question with his female partner. This was the only defense Vance ever mentioned. Even though she was in the courtroom and ready to testify that Smith had been with her at all relevant times. It absolutely was not Jesse Smith.

OPINION/ORDER
Hartman was convicted in an Ohio state court of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder. Morris testified that Snipes was yelling at defendant about touching stuff that was not his. Snipes was observed crossing a street in a nearby business district. She was never seen alive again. Defendant was in and out of the bar five to six times between 9:00 and 10:30 p.m. Snipes's leg was draped across the bed. Bagley Page 3 plastic chair was on top of her body. Snipes's hands were cut off and have never been found. Defendant was at the Inn Between with Morris. While police units were across the street investigating Snipes's murder. Defendant approached Detective Gregory Harrison while he was at a mobile crime lab parked outside Snipes's apartment. Defendant approached Harrison a second time and spontaneously mentioned that Snipes was a whore. Defendant was

OPINION/ORDER
Ronald Dale Bachman appeals the district court's decision that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus was untimely. Bachman was convicted in Ohio state court of four counts of rape and one count each of sexual battery. Beginning when she was five years old. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals on September 23. The court determined that Bachman was a

OPINION/ORDER
The petition was transferred to this court for authorization. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of life in prison on the murder charge and twentyyears for the arson charge. His request for relief was denied. The district court's judgment was affirmed by this court. While petitioner was seeking post conviction relief. Parole was denied on both occasions. Petitioner was considered for parole for a third time. Or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 2 No. 05 6340 In re: Robert David Marsch denied his request and ordered him to serve out his life sentence. Arguing that he was denied due process and equal protection at his parole hearing. He alleges that the Parole Board based its decision on inaccurate statements regarding the crimes for which he was convicted.

OPINION/ORDER
Eventually constructively discharged her because she is female and suffers from headaches and The Honorable Avern Cohn. She was subjected to discriminatory treatment dating almost from the very beginning of her tenure at BCI & I. Denying her requests to attend training sessions (which were attended by male employees) and to work as part of the Terrorism Task Force (to which all of her male co workers were assigned). Supervisor Pete Tobin reacted negatively to Dendinger's taking maternity and sick leave to which she was entitled and that BCI & I improperly denied her first three requests for 2 a position in the Major Crimes Unit. Despite the fact that she was more qualified than the male employees who received two of the positions.1 In 1998. Dendinger was injured when a bullet fired by another agent during weapons training ricocheted and struck her hand. She claims that she was wrongfully required to use personal leave to recover from that work related injury.2 She also complains that. She suffered a stress fracture in her right foot and was placed on disability leave despite her belief that she was capable of performing light duty work.

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
Because the resolution of Puertas's constitutional claims by the state courts was not contrary to. Officers and experts testified at trial that the dogs were most likely alerting to a lingering odor from drugs that recently had been removed from the safes. While that appeal was pending. It concludes that the allegations of public corruption in connection with the Puertas investigation were unfounded. We may grant a habeas petition if the state court's adjudication of the claim

OPINION/ORDER
Because the district court did not err in calculating his advisory sentence under the guidelines and because the sentence is a reasonable one. Tennessee police officers noticed two people

OPINION/ORDER
Was shot and killed outside the home of Joshua Mayes in Harrison Township. Was tried before a jury in the Macomb Circuit Court for murdering Scott Krupa. Where he was convicted of second degree murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and sentenced to 50 to 75 years in prison for the second degree murder conviction. There was a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals for the State of *The Honorable Allen Sharp. The statement of the Michigan Court of Appeals is helpful: Whether Burrell was denied his due process right to present a defense when the trial court refused to allow him to introduce evidence that another person possessed and fired a gun and that a bullet from that gun could have caused the victim's death. Judge Rosen's summary of the petitioner's testimony on page three of his order is also revealing. The focus here is on violations of the federal Constitution. The focus is not on violations of purely State law. It is not disputed that the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

OPINION/ORDER
This is a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after petitioner. Was convicted by a three judge panel of capital murder and aggravated robbery. We reverse the judgment of the district court and remand on the ground that Van Hook's constitutional rights were infringed when Cincinnati police started an interrogation anew with Van Hook after he had requested legal counsel in clear violation of Edwards v. Van Hook's subsequent incriminating statements and confession should have been suppressed. We will briefly recount the facts of the brutal murder that led to Van Hook's arrest. The two left together and Self told the bartender that they were planning to go to Self's apartment. Diabolically stabbed Self so that Self's internal organs were visible and then placed several items in the victim's body. Where he was arrested two months later. The events at the Florida jail that led to the confession will be discussed in detail below. Temporary insanity was the basis for Van Hook's defense at trial. He was later sentenced to death.

OPINION/ORDER
At issue in this habeas case is the voluntariness of Traci L. McCalvin was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court denied the motion as untimely because under Michigan law such motions generally must be filed before trial unless special circumstances are present. If she were convicted of first degree murder. She would not have contact with her family. Was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. McCalvin was twenty seven years old and had never been in jail before. She was a high school graduate. McCalvin told the detectives that Branch's death was an accident. McCalvin was able to use the restroom and call her mother. McCalvin continued to maintain that Branch's death was an accident. She would spend the rest of her life in prison and would not have contact with her family. Helgert then reduced McCalvin's The district court concluded that

OPINION/ORDER
His petition was denied first by the district court. Which were not exhausted at the time of his original habeas petition. Finding that Bowen's petition was either second or successive. Because his petition is not

OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of Algeria. The Immigration Naturalization Service (

OPINION/ORDER
There is no case authority holding that a claim of actual innocence

OPINION/ORDER
I Dizdaric is a Muslim and native and citizen of Bosnia. Armas is a Catholic and native and citizen of Peru. [and] what would have happened to [her] as a young lady if [she] had been caught by the Serbian soldiers.

OPINION/ORDER
He explained that he wanted to do so in order to have access to files the state would turn over only to his lawyer. There were other charges pending against him at the time and in each case Jones asked for access to police reports and other materials the state had turned over to his lawyer but refused to give to him. Jones wanted to spend more time reviewing the materials relevant to his case than his lawyer was willing to provide. The judge asked Jones whether he was dissatisfied with his lawyer's services.

OPINION/ORDER
Guenther argues that the BIA erred in (1) holding that his conviction for voluntary manslaughter was an

OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Keenan is an Ohio prisoner who has been sentenced to death for the murder of Anthony Klann. The factual background surrounding the crime is extensively detailed in State v. Is not directly relevant to the issue before us. Keenan was indicted for aggravated burglary along with the kidnaping and aggravated murder of Klann on October 6. Keenan was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death by the trial court. This conviction was reversed. Keenan was again convicted by the jury and sentenced to death. The final judgment of the trial court was again affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals. This date is key to the issue before us. Keenan's second conviction was affirmed on February 25. The controversy in the present case was precipitated by a so called Glenn order issued by the Ohio Supreme Court on November 30. That order provided as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that. A stay is granted for a period of six months. This petition was well within the six month time frame set out by the Ohio Supreme Court in the Glenn order.

OPINION/ORDER
Patel contends that his Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse is not an aggravated felony within the meaning of the removal statute. BACKGROUND Patel is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on February 18. In which it charged that Patel was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he had committed an aggravated felony. He was entitled to rely on § 212(c) because he was convicted in 1989. Because it is the same as the version applicable at the time of Patel's conviction in October 1989. Patel represents that

OPINION/ORDER
Brier was beaten and shot to death after a violent struggle in her home. Including evidence of a pool of blood in a room separate from where the body was found. Investigators concluded that she was shot first in the chest. Probably in a different room from where her body was found. She was then shot in the side of the head. Which would have incapacitated and possibly killed her. She was shot at point blank range through the nostril. Presumably after she was unconscious because such a shot is inconsistent with

OPINION/ORDER
Who was convicted of driving while having a breath alcohol concentration of 0.10 percent or more. 1 challenges the trial court's decisions to prohibit cross examination and the presentation of expert testimony on whether the type of breath testing machine used to test Petitioner is generally reliable. She asserts that the trial court's rulings on these issues violated her Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and compulsory process and her Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a complete defense and to have the state prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.2 For the following reasons. The sole elements of OMVI per se are (1) operating a vehicle (2) while having

OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Joaquin Ospina appeals the district court's determination that he was

OPINION/ORDER
This panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. I Tommy King was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Which was denied on November 15. Which was provided. The parties agreed at a status conference that King's attorneys would have six months to prepare their petition but that no amendments to the petition would be permitted. King's attorneys filed a motion to have the voir dire from King's trial transcribed. When the transcription was delayed. 2000 (within the original six month timeframe) that King would have 15 days after receiving the transcripts to file his habeas petition. The transcripts were finally ready in June 2001. The statute provides that

OPINION/ORDER
Spirko's motion for a new trial was denied. His petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court and his petitions for post conviction relief were unsuccessful. 3) Spirko's trial counsel were ineffective because they did not investigate the alibi claim of Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder. 6) Spirko was denied due process by the prosecution's use of a suggestive photo array and hypnotically refreshed testimony. 8) Spirko was denied due process as a result of several errors during the sentencing phase of the trial. We will not separately address any of Spirko's claims except those relating to the alleged Brady violations. The only Brady claim that Spirko actually argues in his brief is that the state withheld from him evidence that an individual named Delaney Gibson. Who was indicted with Spirko for the murder but escaped and remained a fugitive until well after Spirko had been tried and convicted. Could not have been present when the murder was committed. It is useful to recount the facts relevant to this claim.

OPINION/ORDER
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

OPINION/ORDER
Wooten claims his state conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon should be overturned because his plea of nolo contendere was involuntary. Because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Keith Wooten was charged with committing two armed robberies. Wooten was convicted of the Carroll County robbery and sentenced The Honorable George Caram Steeh. Finding that the admission of eyewitness testimony relating to the Wilson County robbery was a prejudicial error. Wooten later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and was given a ten year sentence. In the habeas petition that is the subject of this appeal. He claimed his plea was involuntary because the state trial court made erroneous statements during the plea colloquy with regard to the possible combinations of offenses of which Wooten could be convicted at trial. Wooten claimed he was told by both his trial counsel and the trial court that he faced the prospect of conviction on all six charges brought against him. Because some of the offenses with which he was charged were lesser included offenses of other charges.

OPINION/ORDER
Souhail Houssein Shoucair was a conspirator in an identify theft operation. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay restitution in an amount and to such victims as was

OPINION/ORDER
Ali Boumelhem was convicted of five violations of. Boumelhem was at the same time convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(e). Asserting that (1) the Fourth Amendment was violated by the government's search of the cargo container in which many of the prohibited articles were found. (2) the previous crime upon which his § 922(g) convictions were based was not a

OPINION/ORDER
The State claims on appeal that the writ should not have been granted because the state court's admission of the co defendant's statement was not

OPINION/ORDER
File Name: 00a0138p.06 Because we conclude that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice in Scott's trial or sentencing that would authorize us to issue a federal writ of habeas corpus countermanding the judgment of the Ohio courts. We are convinced that the district court erred in holding that the ground on which it granted the writ was not procedurally barred. Because we conclude that the district court correctly held that the other grounds raised by Scott's petition were either defaulted or without merit. We will reverse the issuance of the writ. Factual History The facts of the underlying crime are not in significant dispute. The following summary is largely taken from the district court's Order. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is not procedurally defaulted. Scott argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit aggravated robbery. As the only specification that made him deatheligible was

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge Shipping solid waste to Midwestern landfills has become big business particularly in places like New Jersey where capacity at in state landfills is scarce. Railroads are prime beneficiaries of the increased demand for the means of shipping waste across the country. Which often is brought to the loading facility by truck. Transferring solid waste from truck to rail car is not the cleanest of businesses. Is historically the subject of federal regulation. Because we conclude that the District Court's factfinding does not support its conclusion that all of the State's environmental regulations at issue are preempted here. They then paid

OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court Appellant pled guilty to one count of unlawful re entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 provides: (a) Base Offense Level: 8 (b) Specific Offense Characteristic (1) Apply the Greatest: If the defendant previously was deported. After (A) a conviction for a felony that is (i) a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months. (B) a conviction for a felony drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed was 13 months or less. Or (E) three or more convictions for misdemeanors that are crimes of violence or drug trafficking offenses. That § 2L1.2 is ambiguous in this context. That the District Court's 16 level enhancement was in error.

OPINION/ORDER
We will grant the Government's motion and deny the petition for review. A notice to appear was issued in 1998. He conceded the motion was untimely. He stated that the police have engaged in human rights abuses with impunity. Sharma argued that his life is now at greater risk should he return to India because the police believed he supported the Sikhs. Sharma further argued that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was incorrect. 2 In denying the motion to reopen. The Court will reverse the BIA's decision only if it is arbitrary. 386 F.3d at 563 (stating that the prima facie standard requires the applicant to produce objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood that he can establish that he is entitled to relief). The IJ relied on minor inconsistencies and was insensitive to his cultural differences. Who was a Chinese citizen. The Court concluded that the BIA erred in relying on the IJ's adverse credibility determination in evaluating the motion to reopen where that determination was unrelated to the claim raised in the motion to reopen.

OPINION/ORDER
We will deny the petition. Who is ethnically Chinese. He was authorized to remain in the country until February 26. The government served him with a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable as a non immigrant who remained in the United States for a period of time longer than permitted. A hearing on Hen's application was held on September 14. He testified that he left Indonesia in December 2000 because during the civil riots that occurred in May 1998 he was chased by native Indonesians and witnessed them rip the clothes off women. He testified that nothing happened to him after that but he was fearful because he had heard about bombings occurring elsewhere in the country. He also claimed in his application for relief that because of his ethnicity he was mocked as a child and was not allowed to attend school. Although Hen's wife and two children have remained safely in Indonesia. He testified that he is afraid to return because

OPINION/ORDER
Granted Nara's petition based upon his claim that he was mentally incompetent when he pleaded guilty to murdering his wife and mother in law. We will affirm. 2 I. He was then involuntarily committed to the Connellsville State General Hospital and treated with anti depressants and an antipsychotic tranquilizer. Nara was released. He turned himself in 3 and was returned to Pennsylvania to face two charges of firstdegree murder. He was then confined at the Fayette County prison. John Walton of the Fayette County Mental Health Center advised Gentile that Nara was in need of immediate evaluation and help. Requesting that the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas transfer Nara to Mayview State Hospital for psychiatric evaluation and commitment because he was a risk of harm to himself or others. Reported that Nara was neither mentally ill nor in need of treatment. He was transferred back to the prison. 1984 eighty two days after the plea colloquy Nara was committed to Farview State Hospital as a suicide risk. Nara again attempted suicide and was recommitted to Farview.

OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the ruling of the Board. Oladokun was subsequently admitted to the State University of New York. Oladokun was taken into custody by the Joint Terrorism Task Force after SUNY Maritime alleged that he had engaged in

OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the order of the District Court holding that we lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. We will affirm also the Court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellants' Fifth Amendment due process claims. I. 3 Appellant Wei Zhao is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. Which was incorporated in 1996 in the state of New Jersey. Is a wholly owned United States subsidiary of Jilin Ltd. Who was manager of the company's import and export division. The supporting documentation asserted that Zhao was an executive employee of Jilin Ltd. and that he was transferring to Jilin USA in an executive and managerial capacity. The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the United States Department of Justice and the INS's functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. The INS was unconvinced that Zhao had been and would be employed in a primarily executive or managerial capacity. Because the record did not indicate that he was the beneficiary of an

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We will affirm. Dacua was charged with three counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). When he was first confronted about his story. Dacua challenged the District Court's decisions declining to depart downward for cooperation and assessing the two level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice.2 The government asserted we did not have jurisdiction to review either the reasonableness of Dacua's sentence or the District Court's decision not to depart. This argument is meritless. This is all that is required under Cooper. Id. at 329 (noting a sentence may be found unreasonable

OPINION/ORDER
Padilla was convicted in 1997 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.1 He was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences for the conspiracy and possession convictions and to a consecutive sixty year sentence for the weapons offense. Which were affirmed by this Court. Which was denied by this Court on the basis that. They did not suffice to show by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable As the parties are familiar with the facts. We recite them here only as necessary to our discussion. 1 2 factfinder could have found him guilty. Who is currently incarcerated at FCI Fairton in New Jersey. Concluding that Padilla's claims should have been brought under § 2255 because they challenged the legality of his conviction. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Padilla argues that § 2255 is an

OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Elgergawi is a native of Egypt born to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. His asylum application was never adjudicated. Elgergawi applied for and was granted status as a legal permanent resident.1 In March 1996. Which permits a district court to rule on an application for naturalization where more than 120 days have passed from the date on which the examination was conducted and in which no decision has been rendered.2 Following discovery. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Elgergawi was entitled to be naturalized. That ruling is not at issue here. The applicable section is 8 U.S.C. § 1430(a). Which includes the same three month residency requirement and applies to any person whose spouse is a citizen of the United States. We have therefore cited to the latter section. 4 3 state or district preceding an application for naturalization.

OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Elgergawi is a native of Egypt born to a Palestinian father and Egyptian mother. His asylum application was never adjudicated. Elgergawi applied for and was granted status as a legal permanent resident.'. Which permits a district court to rule on an application for naturalization where more than 120 days have passed from the date on which the examination was conducted and in which no decision has been rendered.2 Following discovery. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether Elgergawi was entitled to be naturalized. That ruling is not at issue here. The applicable section is 8 U.S.C. 5 1430(a). Which includes the same three month residency requirement and applies to any person whose spouse is a citizen of the United States. We have .therefore cited to the latter section. state or district preceding an application for naturalization.

OPINION/ORDER
David Wayne Hull appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the District Court after he was found guilty by a jury on 7 of 10 counts related to explosives. We will vacate Hull's conviction as to Count 7. Was arrested on February 13. A search warrant was executed by law enforcement on his home. Hull did not have licenses or registrations for any of the weapons or explosives. Hull apparently deduced the informant was just that. The agents reserved the right to

OPINION/ORDER
That the stricter AEDPA gatekeeping provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) is applicable only to habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and motions filed under § 2255. The court further noted our conclusion in Zayas that § 2241 petitions are still within the ambit of the abuse of the writ doctrine as set forth by the Supreme Court in McCleskey v. We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the underlying petition is nearly identical to the one dismissed on the merits (including the merits of appellant's challenges to the decisions of the IJ and BIA) by the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He fails to clearly indicate just what those new claims are. Or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur absent review. The underlying § 2241 petition was properly dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Because it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by this appeal. We will summarily affirm the District Court's judgment.

OPINION/ORDER
We disagree with the finding that Holiday was procedurally barred from seeking federal habeas review of his ineffective assistance claims against appellate counsel. That he is not entitled to habeas relief or an evidentiary hearing thereon. Holiday was convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. He argued that trial counsel failed to: (1) object to a

OPINION/ORDER
Because there was reasonable suspicion justifying the stop. We will reverse. I. Members of the Street Enforcement Team of the Virgin Islands Police Department were patrolling the Castle Coakley area in an unmarked SUV when they observed two vehicles. The District Court wrote that the car and van were (continued...) 3 between the vehicles. He also testified that the Honda's window closest to the officers' car was partially open. Both parties agree that the vehicles were in a parking lot. 4 1. After the car was searched. A second pistol was located under the seat as well as two marijuana cigarettes. After the weapons were found. That any statements made were obtained in violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Ruling that the government did not have probable cause to stop the defendants' car.2 In so doing. Hinged on whether the government was able to show. Court found that there was no articulable suspicion of a traffic violation and that the marijuana smell was neither articulable nor particularized to the Honda such that it established.

OPINION/ORDER
That is the question before us in this appeal. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Claudius Atkinson is a citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States as a non immigrant visitor in January 1983. Atkinson was convicted of criminal conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. 2 Atkinson was sentenced to not less than six or more than twelve months imprisonment to run concurrently with a sentence of not less than eleven or more than twenty three months of work release. He was given three years of probation. Atkinson was removable from the United States pursuant to sections 237(a)(2)(B)(i) and 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense and because he was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. An Immigration Judge (IJ) held that Atkinson was removable and ineligible to apply for a waiver of deportation under former section 212(c) of the INA. When Atkinson was convicted. Even aliens who had been convicted of an aggravated felony were eligible to seek such relief provided that they had served a sentence of less than five years imprisonment.

OPINION/ORDER
Is a citizen of Pakistan. His parents and three of his siblings immigrated to the United States while he was working toward a bachelor's degree in pharmaceutical studies. Rehman was accepted into a masters's degree program at Long Island University (

OPINION/ORDER
Ridley was sentenced to a term of 390 months imprisonment. Was ordered to pay a fine of $ 25. Ridley argued that it is the duty of the sentencing court to designate the timing and amount of installment payments on all fines where immediate payment is not required and requested that he be removed from his IFRC payment plan until such time as he is resentenced. The District Court concluded that Ridley's claim was an attack upon the terms of the 1994 sentencing order insofar as it failed to set a payment schedule for the $ 25. To the extent that Ridley was attempting to challenge the validity of his sentence. To the extent that Ridley was attempting to challenge the conditions of his confinement. A § 2241 petition was the proper vehicle but that Ridley had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his § 2241 petition. Noting that he could file his § 2255 claim in the sentencing court and his § 2241 claim when his administrative remedies were exhausted. Ridley is challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (

OPINION/ORDER
A petition for alien relative (Form I 130) was filed on his behalf with the appropriate District Director within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Both petitions were denied on September 20. Ghorab was provided a rights warning and he agreed to answer questions. He was questioned about terrorism by Egyptian national security officers approximately once a year. Ghorab explained that this procedure was routine for imams in his home country. He believed he would have no trouble returning home. The IJ voiced his understanding that Ghorab was not seeking asylum. Ghorab's counsel stated that the IJ was correct in his statement of the specific forms of relief sought by his client. The purpose of the continuance was to provide Ghorab time to file rebuttal evidence to support his petition and to await a final decision on that matter. Ghorab was represented by new counsel. That Ghorab was unaware of those arrests prior to the September 3 hearing. Ghorab had affirmatively rejected the relief he was now seeking in his September 3 hearing by specifically stating that he was not seeking asylum.

OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. Miller was an Essex County Sheriff's Detective from 1982 until his resignation in 2002. The complaint against Miller was dismissed and all restrictions related to his ability to carry firearms were removed. As a result of what Miller claims were

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Was convicted of assaulting a corrections officer with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. The conviction was based on the fact that Crute had thrown a liquid on a female employee in the prison's kitchen. Crute received a report of the chemical analysis of the substance that was thrown on the prison employee. After Crute's third petition was transferred to this Court. The motion was docketed in the District Court on June 21. That his motion was brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (3) 3 whether actual innocence is a ground for equitable tolling. (4) whether the District Court should have transferred rather than dismissed Crute's September 2002 § 2255 motion. Provided that the petitioner is provided with notice and an opportunity to respond. We agree with Crute that he was not formally notified before the District Court issued its order. Crute does not dispute in this appeal that his third § 2255 motion was time barred. That the one year limitations period should have been equitably tolled because he was misled by the prosecutor's failure to provide the chemical analysis of the substance.

OPINION/ORDER
We will deny the petition for review. Shierly is a thirty year old native and citizen of Indonesia. Shierly claimed that she is a Christian of Chinese ethnicity and was subjected to persecution in Indonesia on that basis. Shierly stated that when she was eleven years old. Shierly was allegedly touched in an inappropriate manner by ethnic Indonesians. Shierly claimed that the burglary was ethnically motivated. The IJ found that the three incidents in which Shierly was touched inappropriately in public places amounted to lawlessness or street crime. There was no evidence that the act was ethnically motivated. That her credible testimony was enough to establish that she suffered past persecution. (3) were committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control. Our controlling definition of persecution is a narrow one it includes

OPINION/ORDER
Barbara Schwartz Lee and Bernard Lee This appeal was argued before the panel of Chief Judge Scirica. The quorum was reconstituted to include Judge Smith and Judge Stapleton after the elevation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and the death of Judge Rosenn. The case was reargued before the reconstituted panel on April 26. At issue in this World War II reparations case is whether a suit seeking additional funds for victims of Nazi era wrongs is justiciable. We will reverse and remand. Legal redress was largely unavailable to 6 the victims of these crimes for nearly half a century1 because their claims against the German government and German companies were barred or deferred by various international agreements and treaties. The treaty was silent on the issue of private individuals' war related claims against the German government and German companies. The seventeen founding members were Allianz AG. Leading negotiations on the German side were Chancellor Schroeder's Envoy and Chief German Negotiator. The goal was to create a foundation (a reparations fund) to compensate Nazi era victims and to fund ongoing projects to prevent religious and ethnic intolerance in Germany.

OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether a permanent injunction barring defendant Thurston Paul Bell from promoting and selling unlawful tax advice is permissible under the First Amendment. We will affirm the injunction with modifications. 2 I. Thurston Paul Bell is a professional tax protester who ran a business and a website selling bogus strategies to clients endeavoring to avoid paying taxes. An entity dedicated to the proposition that

OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We will affirm. I. Because we write exclusively for the benefit of the parties who are well acquainted with the facts and procedural posture of the present action. We will recount only those matters relevant to the issues before us. Savage retrieved a tinfoil bundle of what the officers assumed was PCP from alongside the wall of a house on the corner of the intersection. While the sandwich was being made. Savage told Pantalone that he was waiting for his sandwich and did not know the fleeing man.

OPINION/ORDER
Is a Pennsylvania inmate serving a sentence of life in prison for first degree murder. We will affirm the district court's order. Schlueter was arrested and charged in Northampton County. We are concerned with events following his second nolo contendere plea. Appellant's br. at 12 n.11. 2 2 1 that there were no appealable issues that could reduce his degree of guilt. Schlueter contends that his attorneys' parole advice was erroneous as he never will be eligible for parole. Schlueter stated that he was advised that he would be eligible for parole in 20 years. The trial court found as a fact that Schlueter was advised that he would be eligible for parole after serving 20 years. The term of eligibility is irrelevant since [he] was and is never eligible for parole.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We have before us two cases that have been consolidated on appeal. 1 While the District Courts in these cases both addressed the constitutionality of a New Jersey regulation A third appeal that was originally consolidated. Has been severed and is being resolved in a not precedential opinion. 5 1 governing the processing of incoming inmate legal mail. Do state prisoners have an interest protected by the First Amendment in being present when their incoming legal mail is opened? We conclude that New Jersey has not shown that its legal mail policy is reasonably related to its interest in protecting the safety and security of its prisons. We will affirm the grant of injunctive relief in Allah and reverse the District Court's summary judgment for the defendants in Jones.2 I. New Jersey regulations governing the Department of Corrections required that

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Harrington contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. My total fee to represent you in connection with this matter will be Twenty Five Thousand dollars.

OPINION/ORDER
2007) *This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Ambro. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). **The Honorable Jane R. Appellant Michael Black alleges a violation of his due process rights by his conviction based on a guilty plea for conduct that was not criminal. We will vacate the District Court's order denying habeas relief and remand this matter to the District Court. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of ten to twenty years each for the third degree murder and PCOA 2 violation convictions. Arguing that his guilty plea to the state law crime of violating the PCOA was not knowing and intelligent and/or the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction since his was a wholly illegitimate enterprise and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled. The District Court held that (1) Black was not entitled to equitable tolling of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) statute. (2) Besch announced a new rule of law that was not retroactively 3 applicable to Black's PCOA conviction.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge.1 This en banc court is presented with two cases consolidated on appeal. We will affirm the District Court's order in Bendolph. We will reverse and remand to the District Court. Bendolph's petition was untimely. The Clerk of the Supreme Court was unaware of this. The Clerk of the Supreme Court mistakenly believed the petition for certiorari was timely.4 A year later. This too was untimely: Bendolph was obligated under the AEDPA's one year statute of limitations to have filed his motion by August 4. Bendolph did not get the benefit of tolling for the time the petition was under consideration by the Supreme Court because the petition was untimely and therefore not properly filed. 164 (3d Cir. 2003) (

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
IJ A95 872 956 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the 1 petition for review is DENIED. The BIA denied Yanuar's motion to reopen the proceedings on the ground that he failed to offer material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered at the time of his prior hearing. Is devoid of any reasoning. That is to say. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Yanuar did not present material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. The primary new evidence on which Yanuar relied was the 2004 State 2 Department Report. While there were some changes between the 2004 report and earlier reports. That

OPINION/ORDER
IJ A 96 423 912 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Is devoid of any reasoning. That is to say. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hendrik failed to present material evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing to demonstrate that conditions in Indonesia had worsened.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
IJ A72 474 714 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT. It is hereby ORDERED. That the consolidated petitions for review are DENIED. Is devoid of any reasoning. That is to say. Only the denials of his latter two motions to reopen are now subject to review. As petitions for review are active only as to those two decisions. Which was docketed under 00 4183 ag. Was dismissed in 2001 and never reinstated. Singh's attempt to rehabilitate that petition through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is unavailing. We will not address either his ineffective assistance claim or the underlying denial of asylum. Turning to the merits of those decisions that are under review. Both these motions were both time and numerically barred. While he alleged that India had in recent years enacted stricter anti terrorism legislation and was using this legislation to detain and torture Sikhs in particular.

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are faced today with the question of whether plaintiff. (4) that her removal was in retaliation for her stated political views and consequently in violation of the First Amendment. That her allegations are insufficient to make out a Fourth Amendment violation or a substantive due process violation. We conclude that her First Amendment and procedural due process liberty interest claims are viable. Our undertaking here is

OPINION/ORDER
Finding that the failure to object was not a matter of trial strategy and had prejudiced the outcome of petitioner's trial. Finding that Cox's Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated when his trial counsel made no objections to an unconstitutional jury instruction that relieved the state of its burden of proof on intent to kill. We agree with the district The court that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial. Cox's trial counsel was not given a hearing in the district court to explain his conduct as required by Sparman v. Cox was visiting Tanisha Brewster in her apartment when her boyfriend. Who was a large man. Where Brewster was alone with her one year old son. Came toward the door asking who was inside the apartment. Cox was in the bedroom Petty went into the room and closed the door. Who was still holding the gun. The bedroom was very small.

OPINION/ORDER
(2) the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain Giordano's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for civil rights violations under color of law. Was convicted of two counts of civil rights violations under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The majority of which are addressed in a separate summary order also filed today. (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 242. Was a target of this investigation. The government reviewed the contents of a brief July 9 call between Jones and Giordano that suggested that Jones was bringing a nine year old girl to Giordano for sex. Giordano asked if Jones would have with 3 her the nine year old or another female whose age was not discussed. The government intercepted a call between Giordano and Jones in which Giordano told Jones about the message and discussed who might have left it. Giordano asked if the father of the second individual was alive. V1 and V2 to see Giordano was demanding $200 not to tell the authorities. Jones then called Giordano and falsely told him the driver was demanding additional payment.

OPINION/ORDER
Were found guilty of the following crimes: conspiring to commit money laundering. Gavidel was also convicted of structuring cash transactions (totaling $614. Customs Service received a tip that Gavidel was laundering drug The jury did not reach a verdict on two other crimes charged in the indictment. Gavidel laundered the C.I.'s money by wiring hundreds of thousands of dollars he believed were the C.I.'s narcotics proceeds to bank accounts in London. That it is illegal to purchase money orders in amounts less than $3. Gavidel's bank declined transfer requests involving Gavidel's account when the bank suspected that Gavidel was attempting to funnel money to Iran. (4) there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Gavidel's moneytransfer services were

OPINION/ORDER
Calderon collaterally attacked the validity of his deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) on the ground that he was not accorded due process in his deportation hearing. Holding that the deportation order was not a valid element of the reentry charge. The 1326(d)(1) requirement of exhaustion of all available administrative remedies. 1 We do so because Calderon's waiver of administrative review was not knowing and intelligent circumstances that this Court has held may excuse a defendant from satisfying 1326(d)(1). 732 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that this Court can raise proce dural default issues sua sponte even when the Government has waived the argument by failing to raise it below). 1 2 BACKGROUND The following statement of facts is drawn principally from the District Court's Memorandum and Order of January 9. He was sentenced to 3 years probation with the condition that he serve 180 days in prison. Calderon was convicted in a New Jersey Municipal Court of criminal mischief and assault by automobile and sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days.

OPINION/ORDER
Perez was sentenced to four concurrent terms of life imprisonment and one consecutive five year term.2 Most of Perez's claims on appeal have been denied in an unpublished summary order. Is one of first impression: whether a defendant can be convicted of using a facility in interstate commerce with the intent that a murder for hire be committed when the defendant's usage of that facility is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 1 The five counts were: 1. Who was tried with Perez. A professional

OPINION/ORDER
Are barred by the revenue rule. To recover law enforcement costs and tax revenue lost to smuggling are barred by the revenue rule. An opinion issued while plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari in EC I was pending. We have considered Pasquantino v. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs appellants are the European Community (

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
We consider whether the BIA's construction is permissible and hold that it is. The petition for review is DENIED. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: STANLEY H. Circuit Judge: The central question presented by this petition is whether false oral statements made under oath during an asylum interview can constitute

OPINION/ORDER
Wu argues on appeal that certain of the IJ's factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Is actually designated at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e). Entered the United States illegally and was immediately detained by immigration authorities at Brownsville. He was forcibly subjected to a vasectomy by Chinese family planning authorities.2 Wu also testified that after his sterilization. His wife was subjected to involuntary insertion of an intrauterine device (

OPINION/ORDER
The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Attorney General Gonzales for the named respondent. 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (

OPINION/ORDER
The entrapment doctrine recognizes that it is necessary (and indeed. Appropriate) for the police to act affirmatively in attempting to prevent the commission of crimes.

OPINION/ORDER
Appeal from a grant of summary judgment to a newspaper on its claim for a declaratory judgment that its reporters' telephone records are privileged from a potential grand jury subpoena. Cooperation was refused. The Times then brought the present action seeking a declaratory judgment that phone records 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 of its reporters in the hands of third party telephone providers are shielded from a grand jury subpoena by reporter's privileges protecting the identity of confidential sources arising out of both the common law and the First Amendment. 1 Judge Sweet granted the Times' motion for summary judgment on its claims that disclosure of the records was barred by both a common law and a First Amendment reporter's privilege. Although the privileges were qualified. We also hold that no First Amendment protection is available to the Times on these facts in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. BACKGROUND A federal grand jury in Chicago is investigating how two Times reporters obtained information about the government's imminent plans to freeze the assets and/or search the offices of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Holy Land Foundation (

OPINION/ORDER
It is indeed questionable whether. The plaintiff could have obtained effective judicial review of the validity of the government's proposed subpoena of the plaintiff's phone records without it. Could obtain records that identify journalists' confidential sources in gross and virtually at will. It is difficult to see in whose best interests such a regime would operate. For the question at the heart of this appeal is not so much whether there is protection for the identity of reporters' sources. Or even what that protection is. How any such protection is overcome. United States Department of Justice regulations have set forth a departmental policy designed to protect the legitimate needs of the news media in the context of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Department of Justice guidelines are broadly worded. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media from forms of compulsory process. [before a subpoena is served on a member of the media. That the information sought is essential to a successful investigation particularly with reference to directly establishing guilt or innocence.

OPINION/ORDER
Appeal from a grant of summary judgment to a newspaper on its claim for a declaratory judgment that its reporters' telephone records are privileged from a potential grand jury subpoena. Cooperation was refused. The Times then brought the 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 present action seeking a declaratory judgment that phone records of its reporters in the hands of third party telephone providers are shielded from a grand jury subpoena by reporter's privileges protecting the identity of confidential sources arising out of both the common law and the First Amendment. 1 Judge Sweet granted the Times' motion for summary judgment on its claims that disclosure of the records was barred by both a common law and a First Amendment reporter's privilege. Although the privileges were qualified. We also hold that no First Amendment protection is available to the Times on these facts in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Branzburg v. BACKGROUND A federal grand jury in Chicago is investigating how two Times reporters obtained information about the government's 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 imminent plans to freeze the assets and/or search the offices of Holy Land Foundation (

OPINION/ORDER
Davila was found guilty of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and delivering a threat to injure through the U.S. mail. Davila was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction and delivering a threat to injure through the U.S. mail. It also alleged that the threat affected interstate commerce and that the threatened use would have affected interstate commerce. A jury trial was held from June 21 to 28. The court noted that the length of the sentence was affected by Davila's status as a career offender. The court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the state sentence that Davila was already serving. The following facts were established at Davila's trial. Davila was incarcerated at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut. Into an envelope that was pre printed with a notation designed to inform the recipient that it had been sent by a correctional inmate. It was delivered to the front office. Which was occupied by a clerical supervisor.

OPINION/ORDER
Because we agree with the District Court's ruling that Moshier's § 2255 motion was time barred. We decline to issue the certificates of appealability and the appeal is dismissed. 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 DONALD L. The certificate of service attached to the motion states that it was mailed on April 1. Are dated April 1. Moshier's judgment of conviction was entered on April 29.

OPINION/ORDER
Was upheld on direct appeal to the New York Appellate Division. Which was upheld on direct appeal. Davis's habeas challenge is principally based on his argument that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Because (1) his pre trial counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable in failing to advise sixteenyear old Davis. Was prejudiced by these errors because he would not have originally agreed to

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a school speech case.1 On cross motions for summary judgment. Rachel Boim (

OPINION/ORDER
The only issues on which Stewart was granted a certificate of appealability are whether Stewart's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) provide the mental health expert witness with all available information to identify possible mitigating circumstances. While he was hitchhiking. Who was visiting the grandparents. Trial counsel argued that Stewart was guilty of aggravated battery and manslaughter or. Trial counsel thus believed that Stewart's testimony

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
The inmates have failed to identify a lessor form of state provided legal assistance to which they might be entitled. Donaldson Correctional Facility and Holman State Prison (the facilities in which the inmates are incarcerated). The parties consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings and enter judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The inmates' Sixth Amendment claims lacked merit (referring to its previous order in which the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to stateappointed counsel in postconviction proceedings). We review the district court's conclusions of Although the inmates' First Amendment claims are not specifically mentioned in the magistrate judge's final order. The court recognized that the right of access is multifaceted and dependent upon various constitutional formulations. Standing The inmates contend that they are being denied meaningful access to the courts. It is now clearly established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. In some instances that right requires States to shoulder affirmative obligations to assure that indigent prisoners have an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly.

OPINION/ORDER
Gilliam was convicted of the first degree murder and sexual battery of Joyce Marlowe (

OPINION/ORDER
We address the following issues: (1) whether Valle was denied the effective assistance of counsel at resentencing due to counsels' presentation of model prisoner evidence. Were violated. (3) whether Valle's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when the trial court denied his motions to suppress incriminating statements. (4) whether Valle was denied Due Process and Equal Protection based on the manner in which the jury was selected. Are as follows: On April 2. Officer Louis Pena of the Coral Gables Police Department was on patrol when he stopped appellant and a companion for a traffic violation. The events that followed were witnessed by Officer Gary Spell. Appellant was sitting in the patrol car with Officer Pena. Spell heard Pena use his radio to run a license check on the car appellant was driving. He was picked up two days later in Deerfield Beach. 2 Valle v. Valle was indicted for the first degree murder of Pena. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his convictions in 1981 after finding that Valle was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel when he was required to go to trial within 24 days after his arraignment.

OPINION/ORDER
Are these: On June 6. Marcine Cofer was attacked in her apartment and beaten and robbed by three men. She was taken by Detective Robinson to the police station to look at pictures to attempt to identify the third assailant. William Sweet was standing nearby and saw her leave the detective. Sharon was watching television in the living room of Cofer's apartment when she heard a loud kick on the apartment door. Who was sleeping in the bedroom. Sweet's face was partially covered by a pair of pants. Six shots were fired. Sharon were shot in the thigh. Felicia was shot in the hand and in the abdomen. Sweet was convicted of first degree murder. Sweet's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The motion was denied. While the appeal of his state post conviction motion was pending. That petition also was denied on June 13. Concluding that the motion 3 was

OPINION/ORDER
Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off.

OPINION/ORDER
The car was in gear and still running. Agent Mitchell observed that the driver's side window was shattered and part of the glass was inside the car on the front seat. The windshield was cracked. The passenger window was rolled down. Who was in the driver's seat. Was slumped over Jones. The bullet was lying on the vent. There was also a bullet resting on the driver's door where the glass was shattered. Agent Mitchell stated that there was blood all over the interior of the vehicle. Was at her house when Agent Tolbert arrived. Osborne also told Agent Tolbert that the only contact he had with Seaborne was several days earlier when he was trying to change the title on Jones's motorcycle. Osborne explained that the blood under his cuticles was the result of a hangnail. He also told police that his fingerprints could be on the car in which the victims were found because he had ridden in the car a week earlier when he went to WalMart. Osborne provided police with the clothes he was wearing on the day of the murders.

OPINION/ORDER
Is a Georgia prisoner on death row. The procedural history of this case is extensive and complex. This right is guaranteed a defendant in a state court criminal prosecution by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The following statement of facts is an excerpt from Alderman v. Alderman was employed as an assistant manager at the local Piggly Wiggly supermarket. Alderman was employed in the Tax Assessor's office for the City of Savannah. When both Alderman and Brown were employed in the vehicle maintenance department for the City of Savannah. Testimony indicates that Brown was initially reluctant. We affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus on claims that are not implicated in this appeal. 3 2 room and struck Mrs. Alderman's nose and mouth until she was unconscious. Randy Hodges (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The key issue in this habeas corpus appeal is whether counsel for Angel Nieves Diaz. Was ineffective for not arguing. That Diaz was absent from several pretrial hearings and other discussions among the trial court and counsel. Because the minor proceedings from which Diaz was absent were outside the presence of the jury. No objection was made. Diaz was not prejudiced by his absences. We also conclude that Diaz's other arguments are meritless. I. BACKGROUND Angel Nieves Diaz was one of three men who robbed the Velvet Swing Lounge in Miami. Were tried in a Miami court almost six years to the day after they committed their crimes. 2 Diaz was represented by counsel until the moment before opening arguments began. The trial judge was

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
Facts The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal from Jones's conviction and sentence. He was sleeping with his ten year old brother. Was sleeping with their parents. Tony's grandmother was sleeping by herself in a third bedroom of the home. Tony was awakened by a disturbance inside the home. When the light in his bedroom was turned on. Was unable to do so due to his injuries. All four had been severely wounded and there was blood all over them. Charlie and Brenda responded when Tony asked if anyone was still alive. His parents were dead. Were treated for their wounds. Who was standing in the doorway to Charlie's bedroom. His mother and father were both moaning as the appellant repeatedly stabbed them. Charlie was hit in the head several times. She stated that Giles was the one that shot her. He was shot once through the heart and once in the left arm. He was stabbed. Embry testified that Carl Nelson was alive when he was stabbed in the neck.

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
That is where we said that because Camacho's argument was that there was Booker constitutional error and as a result he should be resentenced without the extra verdict enhancement. Which is different only in that it deletes footnote four. Camacho's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Because the previous crimes for which he was convicted occurred more than ten years ago. He should have received only an eight level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Camacho also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional in light of Blakely v. Camacho was assigned a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a). He received a sixteen level enhancement based on two previous convictions that were considered

OPINION/ORDER
Because the previous crimes for which he was convicted occurred more than ten years ago. He should have received only an eight level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Camacho also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional light of Blakely v. Camacho was assigned a base offense level of eight under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a). He received a sixteen level enhancement based on two previous convictions that were considered

OPINION/ORDER
Is an inadmissible alien who brought this § 2241 petition challenging his indefinite detention. The district court concluded that the INS's determinations that Benitez posed a danger to the community and was likely to engage in further violent behavior were facially legitimate and bona fide reasons to detain Benitez until removal to Cuba is possible. Was stopped at the border.1 Benitez then was paroled into the United States pursuant to § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (

OPINION/ORDER
The linguistic issue in the case was the meaning of the phrase

OPINION/ORDER
The State of Alabama (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Defendant/appellant Geraldo Rivera appeals the district court's determination that a statement Rivera made to plaintiff/appellee Neal Horsley during the course of a television program hosted by Rivera is not protected as a matter of law by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution nor by applicable state law. Rivera asserted that Horsley was an

OPINION/ORDER

OPINION/ORDER
Robinson was convicted in the Circuit Court of St. Was sentenced to death on the murder conviction.

OPINION/ORDER
Atrocious and cruel

OPINION/ORDER
Who testified that he was with the CI during the drug transaction. The State relied on the audio portion of the videotape to persuade the jury that Washington was the correct suspect. A certificate of appealability is not necessary. This court reviews de novo the district court's determination as to whether a state court decision was reasonable and reviews for clear error the district court's findings of fact underlying the claim. The federal courts will not grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus of a state prisoner on any claim adjudicated on the merits in the state court unless (1) the adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision

OPINION/ORDER
Because his prior motion was a successful motion to file an out of time notice of appeal in other words. Therefore join the majority of our sister circuits in holding that a successful motion to file an out oftime notice of appeal is not to be counted as a first petition for the purposes of subsequent collateral proceedings. McIver was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. Which was denied. The court clerk sent McIver's appointed counsel a letter stating:

OPINION/ORDER
KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that

OPINION/ORDER
The government's appeal of his separate bond case is therefore moot. The first action is the government's effort to remove Al Najjar from the United States due to the expiration of his status as a legal alien. Which is the subject of this appeal. Is Al Najjar's bid to be released from detention on bond during the pendency of his deportation proceedings. It is the recent and final completion of the first action that renders the instant case unambiguously moot. Al Najjar was born in Gaza in 1957 and moved with his family to Saudi Arabia one year later. The basis of the allegation was a claim by Al Najjar's first wife that she had participated in a sham marriage to allow him to obtain a green card. The case against Al Najjar was closed when he failed to appear at an administrative hearing. Those proceedings were consolidated with deportation proceedings for his wife. Various individuals who have supported and engaged in terrorism in the Middle East. Federal agents arrested Al Najjar on the basis of classified information that he was connected to Middle Eastern terrorist organizations and detained him without bond on the ground that he posed a threat to national security.

OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain alibi testimony. Gave her reason to believe that Wellington might have been involved in the robbery. Locke stated that the male wore a black baseball cap and a satin/silky suit that was brownish/copper in color. He commented that the moustache he saw on the night in question was different from the one shown in the photo line up. Stated that he

OPINION/ORDER
Aron argues that his motion was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(4) because he exercised due diligence in discovering the facts supporting his claim. His motion was filed within one year of the date on which he discovered those facts. He argues that the district court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his claim to have exercised due diligence. BACKGROUND Aron was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute and of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He was sentenced to 151 months' incarceration. Arguing that the trial court should have granted a mistrial based upon prosecutorial misconduct. A final claim challenged the legality of his conviction and sentence on the ground that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 were not published in the Federal Register as mandated by Congress. The government responded to the motion by arguing that it was untimely under the one year period of limitation imposed by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

OPINION/ORDER
Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child. The deepest of which were two inches deep. 3 1 to the squad car. Told him that Bynum's statement reflected that Bankhead stabbed McGraw and was the ringleader. Brown was indicted for the capital offense of the murder of Jack McGraw during a robbery in violation of § 13A 5 40(a)(2). Brown's appointed counsel was Russell T. An evidentiary hearing was held on Brown's petition. Holding that most of Brown's federal constitutional claims were procedurally barred and that his remaining claims failed on the merits. Brown argues that his trial counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because he failed to investigate and present evidence of Brown's drug and alcohol abuse and its effects upon his mental state at the time of the crime.

OPINION/ORDER
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 We conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the supreme court to set aside the conviction on the ground that petitioner had been denied the equal protection right recognized by Batson v. The accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

OPINION/ORDER
KAHN CLERK Wayne Tompkins was convicted and sentenced to death for the sexual battery and murder of Lisa DeCarr. Who was the daughter of Tompkins' girlfriend. The facts concerning the crime and the evidence against Tompkins are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming on direct appeal his conviction and death sentence. This is Tompkins' appeal from that denial. Was the proper procedural route for permission to appeal. The remaining 25 or so other claims Tompkins had raised in the district court were left out of the certificate of probable cause. The problem is that Tompkins did not even attempt to broaden the certificate of probable cause to cover all those other claims. He could have filed an application in this Court to do 3 that. Is that he did not think it was necessary to do so in view of this Court's Hardwick decision. The district court had mistakenly believed the habeas case before it was governed by AEDPA. Including the requirement that a certificate of appealability specify the issues as to which an appeal is being permitted.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Wayne Tompkins was convicted and sentenced to death for the sexual battery and murder of Lisa DeCarr. Who was the daughter of Tompkins' girlfriend. The facts concerning the crime and the evidence against Tompkins are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming on direct appeal his conviction and death sentence. This is Tompkins' appeal from that denial. Was the proper procedural route for permission to appeal. The remaining 25 or so other claims Tompkins had raised in the district court were left out of the certificate of probable cause. The problem is that Tompkins did not even attempt to broaden the certificate of probable cause to cover all those other claims. He could have filed an application in this Court to do that. Is that he did not think it was necessary to do so in view of this Court's Hardwick decision. The district court had mistakenly believed the habeas case before it was governed by AEDPA. Including the requirement that a certificate of appealability specify the issues as to which an appeal is being permitted.

OPINION/ORDER
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed. If the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action. (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. Or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post conviction 2 § 2255 to apply a similar one year limitation to federal prisoners' § 2255 petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.3 Neither § 2244(d) nor § 2255 directly addresses how the oneyear deadline applies to prisoners convicted long before the AEDPAwhether the one year limitation applies from the effective date of the AEDPA. Although Wilcox filed his petition two months after the AEDPA's or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. § 2244(d). 3 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides in relevant part: A 1 year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section.

OPINION/ORDER
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed. If the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action. (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court. Or (D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. (2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. § 2244(d). 3 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides in relevant part: A 1 year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. (2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed. If the movant was prevented from making a motion by such governmental action.

OPINION/ORDER
We nonetheless affirm dismissal of the petition on the ground that it is untimely. We now conclude that the petition was untimely and that it should be dismissed with prejudice.

OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for respondent. Coombs contends that she is entitled to relief because the state compelled her confession to the theft by promising not to charge her for possession of a small amount of marijuana discovered at the time of her arrest. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Coombs was charged with the theft of a sweater from L.L. Carter testified that the marijuana was a

OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. Simpson was convicted in Massachusetts state court in 1974 of the murder of Thomas Morris. Who was stabbed to death by Simpson's associate while Simpson beat Morris with a baseball bat and hammer. Simpson is serving a life sentence without parole. Massachusetts courts had employed moral certainty instructions since they were approved in a murder case of much notoriety more than a century ago. Could have impermissibly lowered the government's burden of proof. Was improper. If put in adequate context with other instructions was not constitutionally improper. Which were denied on waiver grounds. Denied review of his claims for post conviction relief on the ground that his claims were neither new nor substantial. The federal district court bypassed Simpson's procedural default in not raising his challenges at trial or on appeal by concluding that

OPINION/ORDER
Sheketoff with whom Sheketoff & Homan was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. We affirm the district court's determination that Phoenix's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not procedurally barred. Phoenix was convicted of first degree murder in the Hampshire Superior Court of Massachusetts. Raymond Green was the power plant facility manager at the Belchertown State School. The drum was situated next to the entrance to a tunnel system that connected the powerhouse with other school buildings. That Phoenix had entered the powerhouse undetected through the tunnel system and went to Green's office while Green was out getting his lunch. The weapon was not recovered. Only some of which were identifiable. Who testified that the blood from the one interpretable stain was consistent with Green's blood and that it could not have been Phoenix's blood. Determined that the test results were scientifically meaningless and that there was no scientific basis for concluding that the evidence bloodstain was consistent with Green's blood or not consistent with Phoenix's.

OPINION/ORDER
O'Sullivan & Friedman were on brief. Were on brief. Because there is substantial evidence to support the Board's determination against Debab on his first argument. II Debab's case is governed by the

OPINION/ORDER
Sharp & Sharp were on brief. Was on brief. Lane stated that U.S. restrictions on trade with Libya were more stringent than those of the United Kingdom. The appellant prevaricated and told them that the goods were bound for Ethiopia. Belgium (a port through which it already was scheduled to pass en route to Cyprus). Although it originally was due to depart Charlestown on October 18. The appellant vouchsafed that the computer equipment was destined for Ethiopia and signed a false SED. Neither she nor Sullivan was named as a defendant (presumably because they were beyond the court's jurisdiction). He attempted to explain away his false claim that Ethiopia was the country of ultimate destination as a standard broker's business practice designed to mask his customer's identity. His cardinal contention is that the admission of this evidence abrogated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. A. Setting the Stage The parties who agree on little else share the view that Redpath was a key witness. The motion invoked a procedural rule that provides in pertinent part: Whenever due to exceptional circumstances of the case it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness of a party be taken and preserved for use at trial.

OPINION/ORDER
1996 is amended as follows: On page 2. That we have jurisdiction to hear this petition. Rehabilitation efforts) were outweighed by his extensive criminal history. This court will not

OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. They are deemed to have waived review of the earlier motion. We note also that although defendants' motions for acquittal and new trial were filed more than seven days after the verdicts were rendered and the jury discharged. The motions were timely because. See id. at 1471 (explaining that a sufficiency challenge untimely brought in the trial court is subject to

OPINION/ORDER
May not have been aware of Spratt\'s preaching. That his\ preaching was openly known to other prison officials. As was the case with Spratt. RFRA was found\ to be unconstitutional as applied to purely state (as opposed to\ federal) action in

OPINION/ORDER
Our review is of the Board

OPINION/ORDER
This opinion limns the basis for our ruling.

OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Tijani Momoh was accused of stealing United States mail. The package was purportedly being shipped to an address in Lagos. On the front of the completed DHL airbill accompanying the package were the names and addresses of the shipper and the addressee. There was a notation of $80.40 in total charges. There was also a section of the airbill that stated. Centered above the individual terms and conditions was an

OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for petitioner.

OPINION/ORDER
The Gardener robbery was one of the largest art thefts in history\ and resulted in the loss of several priceless paintings. The thieves have not been\ apprehended nor have the paintings been recovered.

\ ' var WPFootnote3 = '

OPINION/ORDER
The event triggering the call was the then unexplained crash of\ an airliner in New York on morning of November 12. We will\ assume arguendo that Coccia\'s claims were preserved.

\ ' var WPFootnote6 = '

OPINION/ORDER
Dowell was on brief. Were on brief. Guez Matos) is the cousin of a former FE employee. Were acquaintances of Rodrí. Iga and Villega were unable to find any money. Iga and Villega were unable to locate any company funds. Oz would have to be assassinated (the two women. Oz was driven to a remote location and murdered.

OPINION/ORDER
P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. We hold that under the new law such stays are guided by essentially the same standard that informs the grant or denial of preliminary injunctions. Only after we have set the stage do we turn to the issues that confront us.

OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief for American Immigration Law Foundation. Were on brief for respondent.

	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Was on brief. Umesh Patel was indicted for setting fire to his business and then attempting to collect insurance proceeds for the resulting damage. Patel was convicted on one count of arson. Patel was sentenced to 204 months of imprisonment: 84 months to run concurrently for arson and mail fraud and 120 months to run consecutively for using fire to commit mail fraud.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for respondent.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for Petitioner.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellees.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER >
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER 1999.
	OPINION/ORDER Is a Pennsylvania inmate serving a sentence of life in prison for first degree murder. We will affirm the district court's order. Schlueter was arrested and charged in Northampton County. We are concerned with events following his second nolo contendere plea. Appellant's br. at 12 n.11. 2 2 1 that there were no appealable issues that could reduce his degree of guilt. Schlueter contends that his attorneys' parole advice was erroneous as he never will be eligible for parole. Schlueter stated that he was advised that he would be eligible for parole in 20 years. The trial court found as a fact that Schlueter was advised that he would be eligible for parole after serving 20 years. The term of eligibility is irrelevant since [he] was and is never eligible for parole.
	OPINION/ORDER Khalil Abdul Hakim was charged in connection with the robbery by two armed men of a PNC Bank in Norristown. Hakim was one of three employees of Boone's.
	OPINION/ORDER We must decide if the Pennsylvania Superior Court was objectively unreasonable in ruling that petitioner Choi Chun Lam's responses to undercover government agents were voluntary and. The record contains undisputed testimony that Lam was afraid of the agents' threats. That Lam's responses were involuntary. We will affirm the District Court's decision to grant habeas relief based on Lam's responses. We will reverse its decision to grant relief based on their fruits. We will also affirm the District Court's rejection of Lam's claims in her cross2 appeal that her Confrontation Clause and due process rights were violated by statements made by the prosecution and its witnesses during her murder trial. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Choi Chun Lam was convicted in state court of conspiring to murder Rong Rong Xu. Xu was married to Lam's ex husband. Yeung was arrested by federal authorities in 1993 on charges unrelated to Xu's murder. The undercover officers visited Lam while she was working at the China King Restaurant in Gilbertsville.
	OPINION/ORDER Denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Sierra is a 41 year old Cuban national who arrived in the United States in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift during which over 125. Immigration officials stopped Sierra and most Mariel Cubans at the border as they were
	OPINION/ORDER Eshun is a native and citizen of Ghana who arrived in the United States in June 1996.
	OPINION/ORDER The Commonwealth1 originally argued that the prisoner's petition was successive and should therefore be dismissed. The Commonwealth conceded that the petition actually was not successive. Offered no alternative legal grounds upon which we could have affirmed the District Court's decision. The Commonwealth argued for the first time that the prisoner's petition was barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. Then he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because the Commonwealth allegedly 1.
	OPINION/ORDER JOHN ASHCROFT ATTORNEY GENERAL USA ORDER It appearing that there was a typographical error in the last line of the first paragraph in the not precedential opinion filed in this action on M ay 19. That line is hereby amended as follows: and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from a denial of a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was sentenced to life. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. A certificate of appealability was granted only on the single claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel's failure to object to the jury instructions on accomplice liability. 2 At issue is whether the District Court erred by finding the state courts neither misapplied nor contradicted Strickland v. In finding appellate counsel on direct state appeal was not ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel
	OPINION/ORDER 2002] today is I am very. That term is terrorist. There are many different kinds of terrorists. We all know too well the kinds of terrorists that caused the attacks of the anniversary so to speak we will mark tomorrow. There are very different kinds of terrorists. (Argued) West Long 105 North Front Street Suite 205 think this defendant is one of them. You heard testimony that he was forcing kids to do drug transactions for him. Is. Is best exemplified by the prosecutor's direct examination of the government's key witness. Through whom he elicited the many ways in which Moore was physically violent. It was also seen when the prosecutor. Could anyone disagree with the government that Moore was a bad man if not some species of
	OPINION/ORDER 2004) OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is a petition for review of an Immigration Judge's decision denying asylum. We hold that we are without jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge's finding of untimeliness and that Petitioner's other argument is foreclosed by a recent decision of this court. Fatoumata Sidibeh (
	OPINION/ORDER During the period of time Pace was pursuing post conviction relief in state court under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. At issue is whether Pace's application for state post conviction relief was
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Much has been written about
	OPINION/ORDER Alternatively held that the claim was without merit. We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for issuance of the writ conditioned upon the Commonwealth's right to conduct a retrial. Who was wanted for sentencing on several drug related convictions and had become a suspect in the murder. Holloway was a middleman who supplied heroin to Baker. Johnson came to believe that Caldwell was
	OPINION/ORDER Hubley was convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. He was sentenced to life in prison. That petition was denied on August 3. After that denial was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. After respondent protested that the petition was untimely and barred by the oneyear statute of limitations effected by the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER Denying the petition of Robert Douglas (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction to review Haley's appeal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We will affirm. Which was denied. The District Court dismissed Haley's amended petition under the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) because it was untimely. Our review is plenary. Haley concedes that his amended petition was untimely. He argues that the District Court should have considered the merits of this petition under the doctrine of equitable tolling because his first petition was erroneously dismissed only one month prior to the one year deadline under AEDPA. The Government and the District Court erroneously assumed that Haley's filing deadline was May 2. Haley's actual federal habeas filing deadline was July 24. This is true because Haley's judgment of sentence became final on March 8. The date his state PCR relief was denied. Both Haley's first petition and his amended petition were filed after this deadline. 3 1 address it on appeal). 2 Not only did Haley fail to argue equitable tolling in the District Court.
	OPINION/ORDER Can waive the state's defense of the statute of limitations that is set forth in the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The issue before us is a limited one. The only issue is whether appellant. Such a determination is provided for lawful permanent residents charged as alien terrorists. S 1226(c) (2001). 1 The petition is directed to Charles W. To avoid confusion we will. Patel is a 55 year old native and citizen of India. Patel was convicted upon a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri of the offense of harboring an undocumented alien in violation of INA S 274(a)(1)(A)(iii). Patel's conviction was based on his employment of the alien. Both in his brief and in oral argument (without contradiction by the government) and the government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court is in agreement. The government stated that it believed the home probation followed the prison sentence but there is some ambiguity in the record. 4 Although persons who are confined to a penal institution for 180 days or more cannot establish good moral character. Patel has not lost his eligibility for naturalization because his jail sentence was less than 180 days.
	OPINION/ORDER S 2A6.1 was the most analogous offense guideline for Cothran's crime. Cothran was scheduled to fly from Philadelphia. Cothran stated something to the effect that he was upset with U.S. Cothran told Blanc that he was merely joking. The airport television was tuned to CNN. Which was airing a story about bombs.). Kate was alarmed and urged her mother to inform airport security of Cothran's behavior. Cothran was then arrested based on his earlier phone call and Joanne's complaint. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence The standard of review is
	OPINION/ORDER We reconsider a petition for review which was first filed on May 12. The decision of the BIA affirming the immigration judge's denial of the applicability of S 212(c) to Morel from which appeal was taken to this Court. Is final. These events were set in motion when Morel was arrested in New Jersey on August 24. Morel was sentenced to four years in a New Jersey correctional facility. Morel was served with an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing by the INS. Morel was provided a hearing before an immigration judge. The charge of possession of a controlled dangerous substance within a 1000 feet of a school was dismissed. A majority of this panel issued an opinion in which we concluded that the INS had erred in construing INA S 212(c) to impose a requirement of seven consecutive years domicile after he was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident and in interpreting S 212(c) not to allow for the crediting of Morel's accumulated residency for the time that his mother proceeded him in the United States.2 Morel.
	OPINION/ORDER Wynn was also convicted of wire fraud. Two questions whether the indictment contained duplicitous counts and whether investor reliance is a requisite of proof to convict under section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 require discussion. Are without merit and do not warrant further discussion.1 1. His right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the district court's denial of his motion for a separate trial. Making baseless arguments that certain assumptions were
	OPINION/ORDER FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PENNSYLVANIA DEATH ROW PRISONERS WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OTHER EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Thomas Ridge. This case was called for oral argument before the Court on January 31. A copy of which is attached hereto. In which was recited inter alia the following: As you are all aware. Plaintiffs in the above case complain that they have been deprived of various constitutional and statutory rights by reason of Pennsylvania's failure to declare whether it qualifies as an opt in state for purposes of the AEDPA statute of limitations. Which is of enormous importance to the administration of justice in the federal courts in Pennsylvania. It is clear that the numerous and growing cadre of death row inmates in Pennsylvania is entitled to a very prompt answer to the question whether a 6 or 12 month limitation period within which to file a habeas petition governed by AEDPA applies.
	OPINION/ORDER The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER The petition for rehearing is denied. Lewis and McKee would have granted rehearing. Attached is Judge Roth's Opinion Sur Denial in which Judges Nygaard. I differ with the panel's conclusion that a failure to exhaust was not excused by the facts of this case. This finding of waiver was made on April 16. After the Lancaster County Prosecutor conceded on the record that relief was warranted. Who was present to assess the statements and the demeanor of the prosecutor. Found that the Commonwealth's later attempt to retract the concession was ineffective. The panel's opinion concludes that the district court erred in finding waiver because of the circumstances in which the concession was made. Its opinion fails to note that the Commonwealth's concession was made in the aftermath of the shocking recollection by the victim's mother. Even if the district court were to have erred in reaching the issue of actual innocence. Even if I were to disregard the Commonwealth's concession that relief was warranted. A unanimous Court established that
	OPINION/ORDER In this appeal we are faced with the onerous task of determining whether the district court. The district court is required to dismiss a federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The result here is dictated by Rose v. We will remand this case to the district court with an order to dismiss the petition without prejudice so that the petitioner can first present her unexhausted claims to the appropriate Pennsylvania state court. Show was brutally murdered. Were subsequently charged with criminal homicide for the murder of Show.2 Buck was convicted of second degree murder by a jury of her peers. That Lambertfiled a motion to dismiss this appeal on the basis that since the district court found she was actually innocent of first degree murder. We will deny this motion. We are plainly authorized to review the final order of the district court in a habeas case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court at a bench trial. Lambert was six months pregnant with Yunkin's child. 3.
	OPINION/ORDER She also claims that the indictment should have been dismissed pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act. That her trial counsel was ineffective. That she was sentenced under the wrong provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. I. Tobin was charged in a 14 count indictment with one count of interfering with interstate commerce by extortion and threatened physical violence. She was tried before a jury and was convicted on all counts except those charging the making of interstate telephone calls that threatened to injure the person of another. Are relatively simple. William Cirignano was the leader of a New Jersey based rock band named
	OPINION/ORDER S 2244(d)(1) was tolled under 28 U.S.C. We join all of the other Courts of Appeals to have decided this issue. We will affirm the order of the District Court. 1984 Stokes was convicted. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and to a concurrent term of years on the weapons count. Stokes' conviction was affirmed on dir ect appeal in 1986 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied his petition for allocatur in 1987. Relief was denied in February 1991. That decision was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Relief was denied on January 3. 1996 and the denial was affirmed on December 26. Allocator was sought and was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on July 2. The United States Magistrate Judge concluded that Stokes' petition was time barred under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. This issue is one of statutory construction subject to plenary review. The limitation period shall run from the latest of (A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review. 3 * * * * (2) The time during which a properly filed application for state post conviction or other collateral r eview with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this section.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was David 2 E. This case is a fine example. While she was in law school. The sums awarded in those proceedings were modest. Perles's maximum fee was only 10 percent of the award. (Perles eventually was joined by co counsel Thomas Fay.). Kagy drafted a written agreement that would have entitled her to one third of Perles's fee in the Flatow case. Perles told her the draft was
	OPINION/ORDER United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for the appellees. Was assassinated in Bogota.
	OPINION/ORDER Nelson and Brian Wolfman were on the brief for amicus curiae Public Citizen. With him on the brief were Peter D. We reverse the court's determination that she was ineligible for an award of attorney's fees.
	OPINION/ORDER Brian Busey were on the brief for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. We find that no
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was A. With her on the brief was Roscoe C. The Guidelines range was significantly affected by several prior felony convictions. One of them his 1991 conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute was very likely in violation of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court years after that conviction became final. That option is plainly foreclosed by the Guidelines. That the district court should have given him a downward departure to mitigate the effect of the 1991 conviction. This is unsound. Clipper has not served time in jail erroneously and is not entitled to a downward departure on that score. The decision
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Does not constitute a
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Does not constitute a
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs were Alan R. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are three Irish politi cal organizations: the 32 County Sovereignty Committee and its successor entity. We have decided two cases arising under the portion of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 con ferring upon the Secretary of State the power to designate foreign terrorist organizations. Holding that two Iranian organizations the Secretary had listed as foreign terrorist organizations were entitled to the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because they had
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Roscoe C. The remedy afforded under 28 U.S.C. s 2255 is inadequate. Smith demonstrates that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. s 924(c) is unlawful in view of the court's interpretation of the substantive provisions of that statute. He is confined in a district located in a circuit in which. There is an
	OPINION/ORDER Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Before he was apprehended. Was released in February 1993. He was taken into custody in Nigeria by United States authorities and brought to the United States for trial. As the air piracy statute under which he was prosecuted bars sequential prosecutions. As this provision only applies if certain additional jurisdictional re quirements are satisfied. (4) that his trial was fatally tainted by the introduction of evidence relating to the passengers' deaths. That this evidence should have been presented in a separate phase of the trial or. That it should have been presented in a less grisly form. (6) that the district court erred in assessing the restitution he was to pay to his victims as part of his sentence. (7) that the district court may have erred in its orders relating to the disclosure of classified government documents to the defense. The following account of the hijacking was not contested at Rezaq's trial. Rezaq is Palestinian. Was. He was accompanied by two other hijackers.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court concluded that the appropriate remedy for the violation was proscription of the assessment and collection of North Carolina's Controlled Substance Tax against him. (3) stating that assessment and collection of North Carolina's Controlled Substance Tax with respect to Minter
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's Accordingly. CA 98 1936 6 17AK We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER Reed found that the front door was locked. The Inn's cash register was open and empty. Clagett was identified as a suspect in the killings. Responding to a citizen call reporting that a man was
	OPINION/ORDER Line 7 the line is corrected to begin
	OPINION/ORDER Third Year Law Student
	OPINION/ORDER Tinsley
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of capital murder in the State of Virginia and sentenced to death. We find that Roach has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that there is no basis for federal habeas corpus relief. Hughes
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Solis was ordered to be deported because of a burglary conviction. Because we determine that Solis is an alien convicted of a deportable criminal offense. Is a lawful permanent resident who first came to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in September. For which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The INS was unprepared and unable to locate Solis' file. Each time the INS was unprepared and eventually the case was administratively closed. Solis moved to have the proceedings recalendared and appeared before the immigration judge on October 15. The INS did not have Solis' file and the case was continued until October 30. A hearing was held on October 30. He would not have been precluded from applying for INA §§ 212(c) or (h) relief. The AEDPA was retroactively applied to him in violation of the Due Process Clause.1 He also argued that. The court noted that it was well established practice that the BIA does not examine 1 This references the fact that the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We note that Maxwell's § 2255 motion was filed in the district court prior to the April 1996 effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Since no certificate of appealability is necessary in this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Because Blackwell's claims of ineffective trial and appellate counsel are without merit. We find it unnecessary to address whether Blackwell's motion was timely under the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). We deny Blackwell's motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Joazara is a resident alien facing deportation due to multiple criminal convictions. Because we determine that Joazara is an alien convicted of deportable criminal offenses. Is a resident alien who first came to the United States as the dependent child of a diplomat. Joazara is an illegal alien. Joazara was indicted on approximately eight 2 different criminal counts and pled guilty to all but one of them. The case was heard by an Immigration Judge who denied Joazara's § 212(h) application and ordered him deported. The Immigration Judge concluded that § 212(h) afforded relief to aliens who were in exclusion proceedings and not those. The Immigration Judge determined that even if Joazara were in exclusion proceedings. Because he was similarly situated to criminal aliens who were seeking re entry to the U.S. or were applying for lawful permanent residence. Joazara was arrested for stealing a car and eventually pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle.
	OPINION/ORDER Died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). They are the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)).* We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER IV and announcing the judgment in part V: Petitioner appellant Jeffrey Clayton Kandies was sentenced to death after being found guilty by a North Carolina jury of the firstdegree rape and first degree murder of Natalie Lynn Osborne. We subsequently issued Kandies a certificate of appealability for his claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the penalty phase by failing to investigate whether he was sexually abused as a child and (2) the North Carolina Supreme Court erred by concluding that the State's use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective African American jurors was not violative of the Supreme Court's holding in Batson v. Who is a Caucasian American. Who was his fiancee KANDIES v. Which is around the same time that Ms. Who noticed that Kandies's hand was beginning to swell. Suggested that Kandies have his hand examined by a medical technician that happened to be inside the store. Declined to have the medical technician examine his hand and immediately left the store.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Jordan's judgment of conviction was entered This court affirmed by an opinion filed November See United 20. The motion was filed within the one year limitations period. We now find Jordan's motion was timely filed under the AEDPA. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Chief Judge: This appeal is one of extraordinary importance. Presenting a direct conflict between a criminal defendant's right
	OPINION/ORDER This omission by Humphries' counsel was. Humphries was successfully prosecuted in South Carolina state court. Humphries was sentenced to death for murder. Humphries' application for postconviction relief in South Carolina state court was dismissed by the Common Pleas Court on December 21. His appeal was rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court on August 26. A federal court may not grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court's holding
	OPINION/ORDER Line 17 the date
	OPINION/ORDER Which provides for an enhancement when an alien was previously deported after conviction for an
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Groom was convicted following a bench trial in the District Court of South Carolina and sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by a two year term of supervised release. Groom contends that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We must uphold Groom's conviction on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidence to find the letter contained a true threat. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Young's petition is barred by the oneSee 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d) (West 1994 year statute of limitations. & Supp. 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER No. 00 4117 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was prosecuted for murdering two people. Although the victims were shot with a different type of firearm. One of which was a shotgun. When Hudson was interviewed by investigators. Indepen *We have considered the effect of Apprendi v. Even if we were to treat the issue as forfeited. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
	OPINION/ORDER We deny his request and dismiss this appeal. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I. Foreman was convicted by a jury on three counts: robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to three consecutive terms totaling fifty five years of imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. When a petitioner's claims have already been adjudicated in state court. The petitioner may only obtain federal habeas relief if the state decision is
	OPINION/ORDER Starr's claims asserted in the amended petition were either procedurally barred or barred by the statute of limitations. Starr was convicted of rape by instrumentation. Starr may make this showing by demonstrating that
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. I. Background Kenneth Alan Lowe was convicted on robbery and conspiracy charges and sentenced to 228 months imprisonment. 000 (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Although
	OPINION/ORDER He was represented by court appointed counsel. Bluemel pleaded guilty and was sentenced. He was taking antidepressants due to a head injury he had suffered some five years earlier. After this petition was denied. Holding that the petition was barred because it was filed outside of the one year statute of limitations period in 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). A COA will issue
	OPINION/ORDER Are inconsistent with clear congressional intent articulated in 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). Respondent contends the regulations are premised on a reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) and 3624(c). Are permissible under Lopez v. Were promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Are invalid. Regulatory and Statutory Provisions Section 570.21 of the BOP's regulations states the BOP
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Arguing that (1) the summonses should be quashed because there were no
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. HARTZ. He was sentenced to 41 months' imprisonment. On appeal he contends that (1) the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on a felony kidnapping conviction that was nearly two decades old. (2) his sentence is unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Conclude that (1) the enhancement was not plain error. (2) the sentence was reasonable. (3) we must follow the decision of a prior panel of this court that sentences within a properly calculated Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable. Which was increased by 16 levels because of a previous felony kidnapping conviction. After objection this was reduced to category II. The advisory Guidelines range was 41 to 51 months' imprisonment. Contending that his case was
	OPINION/ORDER Background Daoud is a Sunni Muslim from Baghdad. He was admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa with authorization to remain for six months. Returned to Iraq in 2003 to help rebuild the country and was kidnapped by terrorists. Tamir also testified that Daoud's lengthy residence in the U.S. would become known almost immediately if he were to return and would be viewed suspiciously. That Iraqis working for the U.S. have been killed and kidnapped. Stating that
	OPINION/ORDER That the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and his counsel was ineffective. His federal habeas petition would have been timely only if filed by April 24. The district court found that Calcari's application for state post conviction relief did not toll that date because his state petition was untimely. This court may issue a COA only where a habeas petitioner makes a substantial (1) This order is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. showing of the denial of a constitutional right. A demonstration that
	OPINION/ORDER Appeals the federal district court's order denying his petition for habeas relief.(1) We granted a certificate of appealability to determine whether Moomey's trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing certain evidence that another person had committed the crime. Background Moomey and Bill Walker were friends and business partners. He told Walker that
	OPINION/ORDER [I] was not able to file within the prescribed
	OPINION/ORDER Among the complaint's allegations were that (1) he was denied his war time treaty right as an enrolled member of the Eastern (1) After examining the brief and appellate record. The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Coando was subject to filing restrictions imposed by a 1993 court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. In similar circumstances we have imposed or upheld such restrictions. Coando asserts that the district judge was practicing law for the defense and acting out of prejudice against Mr. Thus we will not consider them. Speculation are not an adequate basis for recusal or disqualification of a judge). Coando contends that the 1993 order is
	OPINION/ORDER The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. He asserted a claim not included in the motion: that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal at his request. Asserting that: (1) His guilty plea and waiver of appellate rights were neither knowing nor voluntary. (2) His counsel was ineffective by inducing him into pleading guilty. Guerrero asserted an additional claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file an appeal at his request. This is problematic for [his] claim as the manner to determine ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise an issue on appeal is to examine the merits of the omitted issue. If the omitted issue is meritless. Counsel's failure to appeal is not a constitutional violation. The Court is unable to determine the merits. The Court applied the established rule that
	OPINION/ORDER This is a pro se 2254 appeal. Petitioner is currently serving sentences in New Mexico state prison following his convictions for sexual assault on a minor. Judgment was entered on those convictions on June 18. He ruled that the petition was time barred by the one year limitation period contained in the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The issues he raises on appeal are identical to those brought before the district court. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
	OPINION/ORDER Armijo was charged under New Mexico law with child abuse. The judge stated:
	OPINION/ORDER Was sentenced to a term of 256 months' imprisonment on July 25. Contending that he was not a career offender. The district court reminded Appellant that he would have twenty days from the date of the order to contest the recharacterization of his motion under 2255. The district court held that Appellant's motion was
	OPINION/ORDER Petitioner Antonio Farrell was convicted after a jury trial in Colorado state court of eleven offenses arising out of the November 1996 abduction and murder of Barbara Castor and subsequent burglaries.(1) He received a mandatory life sentence and additional consecutive sentences totaling fifty six years. Farrell's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him and that the error was not harmless. Blankenship's statement was
	OPINION/ORDER Was charged in a one count indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2). A matter with which we are not here concerned. The second felony in question was for Forgery in the Second Degree in Colorado on or about May 7. With which we are not here directly concerned. With which we are concerned. Is his prior conviction on or about April 17. Whose removal from the U.S. was subsequent to a conviction for the commission of an aggravated felony. U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 provides as follows: Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States (a) Base Offense Level: 8 (b) Specific Offense Characteristic (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) 8 U.S.C. 1101(43)(F) provides that the term
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The basis of his suit was that defendants were aware of his conditions but nevertheless failed to protect the public from contagion. Determined that plaintiff's claims were frivolous for three reasons: (1) plaintiff could not
	OPINION/ORDER Hill's petition was untimely and recommended dismissal. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
	OPINION/ORDER Terry Lyn Short was convicted after a jury trial in the District Court for Oklahoma County of first degree murder and five counts of attempting to kill after former conviction of two or more felonies in violation of Okla. The totality of the proceedings was unjust and that these errors substantially prejudiced the jury's deliberations at sentencing. Upon thorough review of the record and the applicable law. Short is not entitled to relief on any of his claims. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are largely taken from the direct appeal opinion of the OCCA. Short was convicted of the murder of Ken Yamamoto. Was also present and escaped with injuries. He was conscious when taken to the hospital. Short threw rocks at her car when she was driving with Brenda. Was being held against her will by a male. Short were charged with shoplifting. Short was getting angry and wanted Brenda to
	OPINION/ORDER McMillon is currently serving a sixty three month sentence following his plea of guilty to preparing false tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). That he was not the only perpetrator. Sentencing
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Background Thao was convicted of aggravated battery in a Kansas state court. A list of fifteen witnesses who he said would testify he was in the middle of the fight trying to help Williamson and had not attacked him. Thao's direct appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The state court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Thao's witnesses stated they would have testified at trial that Thao was not one of the attackers. Rather was trying to protect and help Williamson. He testified that funds were not available to hire his own investigator. That the proposed testimony from these witnesses would have been harmful to Thao's defense for two reasons. There were problems with the witnesses' credibility and demeanor. Switz noted these witnesses. Many of whom were friends of Thao's. Were able to testify only that Thao was not one of the attackers. Often gave confusing statements about where they were during the attack.
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Before TYMKOVICH. We granted a certificate of appealability on the following issues: (1) whether Kansas's first degree murder statute is unconstitutionally vague. (2) whether Sperry's due process rights were violated by the prosecution's use of a witness's purportedly coerced statements to impeach the witness's trial testimony. Sperry was charged with first degree murder. Rejecting his arguments that he (1) was denied a fair trial. Sperry was also unsuccessful in his state post conviction proceedings. Stating that her testimony and statements were truthful and uncoerced. The court also rejected Sperry's argument that the first degree murder statute was vague because the definition of
	OPINION/ORDER Price's disorganized and vague allegations fail to provide a short and plain statement of the state procedural background of his case and fail to provide a short and plain statement of his claims showing he is entitled to relief.
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) On February 4. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action. (2) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(1). Is a native and citizen of Nepal. At the time the record before us was compiled in 1997 98. Nepal was a constitutional monarchy embroiled with internal conflict caused by the extreme poverty of the majority of its citizens. Basnet became disenchanted with corruption in the government and began attending meetings of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge. Benjamin Charles Harris was convicted of first degree murder. Harris's gun when the shots were fired. Pearce was asleep when Mr. One of the state's witnesses was Tom Bevel. When the shots were fired. Pearce
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge. Petitioner James Patrick Malicoat was convicted in Grady County. Malicoat argues that: (1) his counsel on direct appeal was ineffective for failing to argue that a carving in the courtroom bearing the inscription
	OPINION/ORDER Goble is serving two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole after his conviction on two counts of murder. The district court denied the petition and later granted a certificate of appealability on one issue: whether trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in presenting Goble's Fourth Amendment challenge to the search warrant which led to the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. This court expanded the certificate of appealability to include the issue of whether
	OPINION/ORDER Jackie Marie Hudson are Sisters in the Dominican Order. They contend that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The site was in a state of high readiness the nuclear missiles were to be launched within 15 minutes of a Presidential order. Their
	OPINION/ORDER The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I. BACKGROUND Aldrich was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death on August 9. Aldrich was convicted of the murder of Nicholas West. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) states that federal habeas petitioners must demonstrate that the state court's adjudication was either
	OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Tennille Thompson. day they were joined by another friend. Smith and Busby left the trailer where the group was staying. Busby was arrested soon afterward. Busby was indicted on June 20. Busby was A week later. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of second degree murder by a Louisiana jury on July 26. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * request was filed out of time. After McGee's applications for state postconviction relief were denied. He filed the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that is the subject of this appeal. A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted on the issue whether McGee's conviction became final for limitations purposes either (a) on the date the time expired for seeking a supervisory writ in the Louisiana Supreme Court or (b) on the date the Louisiana Supreme Court actually denied McGee's apparently untimely writ application. Which is
	OPINION/ORDER Jefferson contends that he should be permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is innocent in light of Apprendi v. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. No. 03 30082 2argument is foreclosed by Wesson v. We need not consider these issues because they have been raised for the first time on appeal. Because they are not pertinent to the question whether Jefferson should be permitted to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. issues are without merit. Because Jefferson's appeal is without arguable merit. It is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
	OPINION/ORDER Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Munguia to join a group of men in front of Elizondo's home. present were Elliott. According to Hanson: Munguia was crying. Her words were slurred. Her walking was impaired. Munguia was crying and pleading for Hanson's help and said she was
	OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * are reviewed under the deferential standard of the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Ward first contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He must establish that no
	OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Armand is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes. He will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
	OPINION/ORDER Who is scheduled to be executed at 6:00 p.m. today. District court were premised on his argument that he is incompetent Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. I Ogan was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of a police officer. the sufficiency of the On direct appeal. Ogan did not raise the claim that he was incompetent to be executed under the Ford standard. The court The district considered the claim on the merits and rejected it. court also applied the procedural bar to Ogan's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize the extent of his mental health problems. (2) he was incompetent to stand trial. (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request an adequate and accurate jury instruction on mitigating evidence and in failing to object to the
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge:* Petitioner Appellant Stephen Moody (
	OPINION/ORDER Who is scheduled to be executed at 6 pm on November 6. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Colburn's motions to the district court were premised on his argument that he is incompetent to be executed under the standards set forth in Ford v. Colburn was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of a woman hitchhiking near his home. It refused to consider the claim that he was incompetent to be executed. Finding it unripe for consideration because Colburn's execution was not imminent. 513 (Tex. Colburn did not raise the claim that he was incompetent to be executed under the Ford standard. Execution was set for November 6. Colburn was evaluated by two experts appointed by the court (but recommended by the state). He understood the reasons he was being executed and otherwise satisfied the Ford requirements. Because this was a successive petition. Agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
	OPINION/ORDER The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Her argument is reviewed for plain error. 700 documents is
	OPINION/ORDER Sr. was convicted of capital murder by a Rankin County. In the penalty phase of the trial the jury returned a death penalty verdict and found that the capital offense was committed for pecuniary gain. That the murder was especially heinous. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Nixon v. Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in 1989. Who had married his wife six months earlier (a scant three months after her prior divorce was finalized). Tucker was soon discovered by Tucker's co worker and was taken to the hospital. Nixon was arrested after being identified in a lineup by Mr. Nixon was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Nixon filed a federal habeas petition that was denied by the district court. application for a COA followed. Because the petition was filed before the effective date of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. The immigration convictions were which After child endangerment 8 U.S.C. § felonies
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of second degree murder by a Louisiana jury on July 26. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * request was filed out of time. After McGee's applications for state postconviction relief were denied. He filed the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that is the subject of this appeal. A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted on the issue whether McGee's conviction became final for limitations purposes either (a) on the date the time expired for seeking a supervisory writ in the Louisiana Supreme Court or (b) on the date the Louisiana Supreme Court actually denied McGee's apparently untimely writ application. Which is
	OPINION/ORDER He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. The immigration convictions were which After child endangerment 8 U.S.C. § felonies
	OPINION/ORDER Len Davis and Paul Hardy were sentenced to death under the Federal Death Penalty Act. The convictions for one of the three counts of conviction were vacated. The death sentences were vacated. The case was remanded for a new sentencing proceeding. At issue is whether the harmless error standard of review applies here because. Defendants have not been sentenced. The error attached not at sentencing but when the final superceding indictment was returned. The error was harmless. I. Kim Marie Groves was murdered on 13 October 1994 in New Orleans. Was to murder Kim Groves. Davis arranged to have Hardy and Causey meet him at the police station in order to take them to her. Hardy replied he was
	EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief were Timothy J. Ambrose. Of counsel was Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Thomas L. Line height:200%'> The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan. The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ). The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country. With him on the brief were Matthew W. Siegal. Argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Lyn M. Schlitt. Font family:Arial'> This is one of two related appeals from a decision of the International Trade Commission in a case involving single use or disposable 35 mm film cameras. Filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that various respondents were violating section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended. Font family:Arial'>. The Commission also issued cease and desist orders to 20 domestic respondents who were found to have significant amounts of infringing inventory in this country. On appeal. Many of which were not respondents in the earlier proceeding.
	CHRIS PARADISSIOTIS V. U.S. Argued for defendant appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER
	U.S. V. RONALD T. CLIPPER With him on the briefs was A. Argued the cause for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER Argued the cause for respondent.
	32 COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY COMMITTEE V. DEPT. OF STATE
	USA V. MICHAEL PALMER Was on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief.
	BAILEY V. NAGLE This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bailey v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> This appeal is ORDERED to be heard initially by the Court sitting en banc. Has the authority to grant a certificate of appealability.<p> The parties are directed to file with the Clerk's Office simultaneous briefs limited to this issue. No extension of time will be granted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/96-6513.man.html">HUNTER V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunter v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> This appeal is ORDERED to be heard initially by the Court sitting en banc. Has the authority to grant a certificate of appealability.<p> The parties are directed to file with the Clerk's Office simultaneous briefs limited to this issue. No extension of time will be granted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-10507.opn.html">MCIVER V. UNITED STATES (9/30/2002, NO. 01-10507)<BR></A><BR> Because his prior motion was a successful motion to file an out of time notice of appeal in other words. Therefore join the majority of our sister circuits in holding that a successful motion to file an out of time notice of appeal is not to be counted as a first petition for the purposes of subsequent collateral proceedings. McIver was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. Which was denied. The court clerk sent McIver's appointed counsel a letter stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-3367.man.html">TOMPKINS V. MOORE (10/29/1999, NO. 98-3367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Wayne Tompkins was convicted and sentenced to death for the sexual battery and murder of Lisa DeCarr. Who was the daughter of Tompkins' girlfriend. The facts concerning the crime and the evidence against Tompkins are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming on direct appeal his conviction and death sentence. <EM>See Tompkins v. This is Tompkins' appeal from that denial.</P> <P><CENTER>THE CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE</CENTER> </P> <P> After the district court denied his habeas petition. Was the proper procedural route for permission to appeal. <EM>See Hardwick v. The remaining 25 or so other claims Tompkins had raised in the district court were left out of the certificate of probable cause.</P> <P> Tompkins wants us to review the district court's denial of relief as to far more claims than the certificate of probable cause specifies. The problem is that Tompkins did not even attempt to broaden the certificate of probable cause to cover all those other claims. He could have filed an application in this Court to do that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-4681.man.html">WILCOX V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (10/29/1998, NO. 97-4681)<BR></A><BR> The magistrate judge specifically concluded that Wilcox's petition was barred under § 2244(d)(1)(A) because it was not filed within one year of July 2. Even though the AEDPA was not enacted until over five years after that conviction became final. While Wilcox's appeal was pending. A reasonable period is until April 23. <EM>Goodman</EM> noted the similarity of the statute of limitations provisions that apply to petitions filed under §§ 2254 and 2255. <EM>See id.</EM> at 1336 n. 2.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR> Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/99-14518.opn.html">ARON V. UNITED STATES (5/13/2002, NO. 99-14518)<BR></A><BR> Appeals the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15821.opn.html">HORSLEY V. RIVERA (5/28/2002, NO. 01-15821)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/01-15571.opn.html">HART V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF STATE OF FLORIDA (3/5/2003, NO. 01-15571)<BR></A><BR> Jason Monte Perini were indicted by a Dade County. Each defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder. The defendants were also charged with the armed kidnaping of Aneschka Culmer. Who was the only witness and survivor of the armed </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/01-12224.opn.html">WASHINGTON V. CROSBY (3/21/2003, NO. 01-12224)<BR></A><BR> Who testified that he was with the CI during the drug transaction. The State relied on the audio portion of the videotape to persuade the jury that Washington was the correct suspect. This court reviews </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/99-13558.man.html">PARKER V. HEAD (3/15/2001, NO. 99-13558)<BR></A><BR> Parker argues that he is entitled to relief because:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-8483.ma3.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (3/8/2000, NO. 97-8483)<BR></A><BR> We reverse the district court's order dismissing McAndrew's § 1985(2) claim as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. The United States Department of Justice was investigating Lockheed's sale of three C 130 aircraft to the Arab Republic of Egypt for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 <EM>et seq.</EM> Robert McAndrew had served as Lockheed's Director of International Marketing since 1989 and was responsible for negotiating the sale of aircraft to foreign nations.</P> <P> In the fall of 1993. McAndrew and more than 30 other Lockheed employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. McAndrew alleges that on the morning he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Told him specifically that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-4745.man.html">NIEMAN V. DRYCLEAN U.S.A. FRANCHISE CO. (6/21/1999, NO. 97-4745)<BR></A><BR> The district court held that the Franchise Rule applied extraterritorially and therefore Nieman was entitled to refund of his deposit. The basis of Nieman's suit was that DUSA had failed to make the disclosures required under the DUTPA and under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Franchise Rule. DUSA defended on the ground that the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule do not apply because this transaction took place in Argentina and the DUTPA and the Franchise Rule have no extraterritorial application.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8730.man.html">SCHAFER V. TIME, INC. (6/8/1998, NO. 96-8730)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This diversity case requires us to parse the often conflicting and confusing concepts of malice as they have evolved in Georgia's libel laws. Most notably whether specific instances of misconduct are admissible to prove character under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b) in an action for libel under Georgia law. Although these evidentiary issues are not dispositive given our decision to reverse the district court on the grounds mentioned above. A terrorist's bomb was then. Is now. Had targeted Pan Am 103 to eliminate several of the passengers who were members of a United States counter terrorism team attempting to rescue United States hostages in Lebanon. Is alleged to have told Iranian officials that McKee [one of the U.S. agents] was booked on Flight 103.</P> <P><EM>See</EM> Schafer R. Is Michael Schafer. The instructions included a recitation of Georgia's statutory definition of libel:</P> <P> [A] libel is a false <EM>and malicious</EM> defamation of another expressed in print. Only that Time failed to exercise ordinary care in ascertaining whether the information it published was true or false before it could find in Schafer's favor.</P> <P> After describing these elements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14261.man.html">BROWN V. JONES (6/29/2001, NO. 99-14261)<BR></A><BR> Brown and Bynum were both familiar with McGraw. Brown recalled Bankhead saying that they would have to kill McGraw. Where they divided the stolen property and the money from McGraw's wallet and burned their clothes which were covered in blood. The next afternoon McGraw's body was discovered by a neighborhood child.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-6684.opn.html">FRANKLIN V. HIGHTOWER (6/19/2000, NO. 98-6684)<BR></A><BR> Franklin then filed a petition under Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 challenging his 1982 convictions on the grounds that neither the court nor his counsel advised him of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-3693.man.html">MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693)<BR></A><BR> They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-12314.man.html">SMITH V. JONES (7/10/2001, NO. 00-12314)<BR></A><BR> Its application to Alabama prisoners whose direct appeal process was completed before that decision was released.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/99-13766.opn.html">BREEDLOVE V. MOORE (1/17/2002, NO. 99-13766)<BR></A><BR> Breedlove was convicted in the Dade County Circuit Court on March 2. Was sentenced to death on the murder charge. As he could not secure habeas relief on that claim even if all of his factual allegations are proven. Was murdered in the course of the burglary. Was arrested three days later. Shortly thereafter was indicted for the murder of Budnick and the attempted murder of another occupant of the house. Was unable to identify Breedlove as the assailant. As well as testimony concerning both her own wounds and the property that was stolen from the house (which included a rhinestone watch). Ojeda testified that Breedlove insisted that the police were trying to frame him. Breedlove claimed it was because he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-15480.opn.html">GARCIA V. UNITED STATES (1/9/2002, NO. 00-15480)<BR></A><BR> Garcia argues that his motion was timely because he is entitled to retroactive application of the rule announced in </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-4410.man.html">MAZARIEGOS V. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GEN. (2/12/2001, NO. 99-4410)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/99-10002.man.html">FULLER V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE ALABAMA (12/8/1999, NO. 99-10002)<BR></A><BR> We reverse.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Fuller was arrested in a drug raid on an apartment in Midfield. Two or three other men were in the apartment at the time. Another was caught rushing to the bathroom with about 25 gm of cocaine.</P> <P> According to police testimony at trial. Before him on a coffee table were various tools of the drug trade. There was also a set of keys that included a key to the apartment. The State introduced mail addressed to Fuller that was found in the kitchen trash can.</P> <P> Fuller took the stand on his own behalf. Fuller also swore that the baggies were not on the coffee table until the police arrived and placed them there.</P> <P> Fuller's direct appeal from his cocaine possession conviction failed. One of his claims was that his trial lawyer. Griffin was another one of the men in the apartment at the time of the raid. He pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and was incarcerated at the time of Fuller's trial. Griffin would have testified that all of the drugs and tools of the drug trade in the apartment belonged to him. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2002/00-11998.opn.html">WELLINGTON V. MOORE (12/18/2002, NO. 00-11998)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain alibi testimony. Gave her reason to believe that Wellington might have been involved in the robbery. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/99-10225.man.html">ALEJANDRE V. TELEFONICA LARGA DISTANCIA DE PUERTO RICO (8/11/1999, NO. 99-10225)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that this company is an entity separate from the Cuban Government. Three citizens of the United States and one non citizen were killed in the attack. The court found that the defendants were not immune from the plaintiffs' suits because the Cuban Air Force (as an agent of the terrorist sponsoring Cuban Government) had committed an act of extrajudicial killing by shooting down the airplanes. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7) (Supp. The court also concluded that the defendants were substantively liable to the plaintiffs. Each writ asked the garnishee to serve an answer stating whether it was indebted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/96-6770.ma2.html">BAILEY V. NAGLE (4/20/1999, NO. 96-6770)<BR></A><BR> Bailey was convicted in 1991 of one count of illegal distribution of crack cocaine. He is currently serving that term. He was informed that the proper vehicle for obtaining such review under Alabama law was simply to file another Rule 32 petition.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/96-6770.man.html">BAILEY V. NAGLE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bailey v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> This appeal is ORDERED to be heard initially by the Court sitting en banc. Has the authority to grant a certificate of appealability.<p> The parties are directed to file with the Clerk's Office simultaneous briefs limited to this issue. No extension of time will be granted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/96-6513.man.html">HUNTER V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hunter v. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> This appeal is ORDERED to be heard initially by the Court sitting en banc. Has the authority to grant a certificate of appealability.<p> The parties are directed to file with the Clerk's Office simultaneous briefs limited to this issue. No extension of time will be granted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-10507.opn.html">MCIVER V. UNITED STATES (9/30/2002, NO. 01-10507)<BR></A><BR> Because his prior motion was a successful motion to file an out of time notice of appeal in other words. Therefore join the majority of our sister circuits in holding that a successful motion to file an out of time notice of appeal is not to be counted as a first petition for the purposes of subsequent collateral proceedings. McIver was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. Which was denied. The court clerk sent McIver's appointed counsel a letter stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-3367.man.html">TOMPKINS V. MOORE (10/29/1999, NO. 98-3367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Wayne Tompkins was convicted and sentenced to death for the sexual battery and murder of Lisa DeCarr. Who was the daughter of Tompkins' girlfriend. The facts concerning the crime and the evidence against Tompkins are set out in the Florida Supreme Court's decision affirming on direct appeal his conviction and death sentence. <EM>See Tompkins v. This is Tompkins' appeal from that denial.</P> <P><CENTER>THE CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE</CENTER> </P> <P> After the district court denied his habeas petition. Was the proper procedural route for permission to appeal. <EM>See Hardwick v. The remaining 25 or so other claims Tompkins had raised in the district court were left out of the certificate of probable cause.</P> <P> Tompkins wants us to review the district court's denial of relief as to far more claims than the certificate of probable cause specifies. The problem is that Tompkins did not even attempt to broaden the certificate of probable cause to cover all those other claims. He could have filed an application in this Court to do that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-4681.man.html">WILCOX V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (10/29/1998, NO. 97-4681)<BR></A><BR> The magistrate judge specifically concluded that Wilcox's petition was barred under § 2244(d)(1)(A) because it was not filed within one year of July 2. Even though the AEDPA was not enacted until over five years after that conviction became final. While Wilcox's appeal was pending. A reasonable period is until April 23. <EM>Goodman</EM> noted the similarity of the statute of limitations provisions that apply to petitions filed under §§ 2254 and 2255. <EM>See id.</EM> at 1336 n. 2.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR> Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/99-14518.opn.html">ARON V. UNITED STATES (5/13/2002, NO. 99-14518)<BR></A><BR> Appeals the </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15821.opn.html">HORSLEY V. RIVERA (5/28/2002, NO. 01-15821)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/01-15571.opn.html">HART V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF STATE OF FLORIDA (3/5/2003, NO. 01-15571)<BR></A><BR> Jason Monte Perini were indicted by a Dade County. Each defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder. The defendants were also charged with the armed kidnaping of Aneschka Culmer. Who was the only witness and survivor of the armed </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="164"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/01-12224.opn.html">WASHINGTON V. CROSBY (3/21/2003, NO. 01-12224)<BR></A><BR> Who testified that