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 tobacco returned 2182 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately
	OPINION/ORDER The tobacco companies argue that this is a case of compelled subsidization of speech prohibited by the First Amendment. California counters that the advertisements are government speech entirely immune from First Amendment attack. The tobacco companies concede that (1) the imposition of the tax itself is not unconstitutional and (2) the message produced by the government's advertisements creates no First Amendment problem apart from its method of funding. The revenue generated by the surtax is placed in the
	OPINION/ORDER Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. зз 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Burling were on brief. Flom LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Chief Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Reasoning that the funds' injuries were too remote from. We hold that because the hospitals' damages are too speculative and their injuries are too remote from the tobacco companies' alleged wrongdoing. Proximate cause is lacking. Thus the hospitals do not have standing to sue. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellants are sixteen charitable not for profit Pennsylvania hospitals (the
	OPINION/ORDER That the warehouses were required to complete their administrative appeal before bringing two of their other claims in federal court. Are permitted to sell without losing their price protection from the government. Any excess tobacco over the quota limit that is sold by a producer is subject to a tobacco marketing quota (
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant tobacco companies have targeted the marketing of mentholated tobacco products at African Americans.
	OPINION/ORDER The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are called upon to decide whether the United States Tax Court erred in finding the taxpayers liable for deficiencies. We hold that the tax court's finding that the taxpayers are liable for accuracy related penalties under I.R.C. з 6662 is not clearly erroneous. Pridgen 1 Roberts was deceased at the time of the hearing before the tax court. Gaskins were entitled to innocent spouse relief for the taxable years in question under I.R.C. з 6013(e). Roberts was responsible for the day to day operations and management of Beaufort Leaf. Pridgen was assessed a deficiency of $129. Pridgen was assessed a deficiency of $232. Gaskins was assessed a deficiency of $131. Gaskins was assessed a deficiency of $240. 004 was also assessed against Gaskins for the 1991 taxable year. The deficiencies were determined based upon adjustments to each taxpayer's distributive share of Beaufort Leaf's net income for each taxable year. 2 4 PRIDGEN v. INTERNAL REVENUE The marketing of tobacco is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (
	OPINION/ORDER The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share.
	OPINION/ORDER The Hospital Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Washington which are required by state and federal law to provide health care services to the general public regardless of their patients' ability to pay. The Hospital Districts allege that the Tobacco Firms have engaged in a half century conspiracy against the public generally and the health care industry in particular. The Tobacco Firms have conspired to misrepresent and to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine and the health risks associated with tobacco use. The Hospital Districts further claim that the Tobacco Firms have conspired to suppress competition to develop less harmful nicotine and tobacco products and have manipulated the levels of nicotine in their products to ensure continuing addiction. The Tobacco Firms have allegedly conspired to refrain from making any claims concerning the relative health superiority of specific tobacco products. Less harmful tobacco products would 2383 have been developed which would have garnered a substantial market share.
	OPINION/ORDER Line 15 the citation is corrected to read
	OPINION/ORDER The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe with approximately 3. The Community is the successor in interest to the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. The TPTA states that its intent is to levy the tobacco tax against the consumers of tobacco products. Although it is the licensee's responsibility to collect and account for the tax. The state can tax sales made by a tribe to individuals who are not tribal members. A state like Michigan is faced with a somewhat complicated collection scheme when. The Community was party to such an agreement with the state from 1977 until the state terminated it in 1997. Revised agreements were reached with eight of the tribes. The State will now require all wholesalers and/or unclassified acquirers to collect these taxes at the point of sale even where the retail purchaser is an Indian Tribe or tribal member. All packs of cigarettes sold at retail from within Indian Country will bear a special stamp applied by the wholesaler to clearly indicate that tax has been paid. . . .
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from the dismissal under Fed. Who are cigarette wholesalers. The District Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under both the Noerr Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines. We agree they are immune under the Noerr Pennington doctrine but not under the Parker doctrine. We will affirm. Are cigarette manufacturers who were original signatories to the Multistate Settlement Agreement. They are collectively known as the major tobacco companies or the Majors. The Majors are responsible for 98% of cigarette sales in the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER EPA argues that the district court incorrectly held that the Report was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That error was nonetheless harmless and not grounds for vacating EPA's Report. Because the Report is not reviewable agency action under the APA. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for dismissal.3 Such smoke is also known as secondhand. The Radon Act was based on Congress's finding that
	OPINION/ORDER * Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case. 1998 Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 CORRECTED REPRINT Filed November 12. D.C. 20006 Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that
	OPINION/ORDER We consider whether three Minnesota nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have presented sufficient evidence of causation of harm and damages to recoup certain health care costs of their members that resulted from tobacco use. We have the advantage of some recent guidance from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the question. Only the second question is currently relevant. The Minnesota Supreme Court responded that although proof of
	OPINION/ORDER Tuazon was diagnosed with a chronic lung disorder in 2003 in his native Philippines. Who was born and lived in the Philippines. A condition he suspected was smoking related. Tuazon was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder in 2003. Reynolds' market share in Washington was 29 31%. While its national market share was 23 24%. Reynolds was conducting sophisticated market research. Reynolds organized local opposition to city and state legislation that would have banned or limited smoking and cigarette advertising. It is not necessary to summarize the history of tobacco litigation here. Information on tobacco related litigation and the master settlement agreement is made available by the National Association of Attorneys General. Tuazon claims that Reynolds was able to suppress information regarding tobacco's addictive and corrosive health effects. Tuazon bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is appropriate. The decision was based on written submissions only. Exercise of in personam jurisdiction over an out of state defendant is limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	OPINION/ORDER His product of choice was Beech Nut. Which was manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco Company and later acquired in 1988 by National Tobacco Company. Tuttle was diagnosed with oral cancer. Tuttle's claims are legally insufficient. Tuttle has remarried and is now named Gloria Tuttle Fisher. 2 1 mass as parotitis2 and prescribed an antibiotic and Advil for discomfort. Koutroupas also noted Tuttle was a
	99-5113 -- HISE V. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED -- 02/17/2000 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellants Leo Hise and Jack Isch appeal the district court's decision granting summary judgment to the Appellees (hereafter
	OPINION/ORDER Which they are in a habit of doing.
	B & G ENTERPRISES, LTD V. U.S. With him on the brief was John M. With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel was Katherine M. Of counsel on the brief was Karen Wagner. Of counsel was Patricia Kaeding. Ha[ve] in effect a law providing that it is unlawful for any manufacturer. HHS was instructed to reduce that state
	OPINION/ORDER D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that
	OPINION/ORDER X Administratrix with will annexed of the Estate of Nos. 02 3267/3309 David Tompkin. The original defendants were Philip Morris. She claims that the district court erred by (1) admitting
	OPINION/ORDER Several retailers who sell tobacco products in Iowa filed this action contending that з 142A.6(6) is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Control Act seeks to reduce tobacco use
	OPINION/ORDER This opinion and judgment are being entered insofar as the remaining judges are unanimous in this decision. A class of Pennsylvania Medicaid recipients who have various smoking related illnesses. They assert 2 that pursuant to the provisions of S 1396k(b) they are individuals to whom the remainder of the amount collected should be paid. We will affirm that dismissal. Which they contend requires the Commonwealth to pay them whatever portion of the Tobacco Settlement is not used to reimburse the Commonwealth for its Medicaid expenses. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Because these claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. We will reverse only if. The plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Before plaintiffs can prevail in this suit they must demonstrate that the relief 3 they seek is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. We can consider whether there are alternative grounds. That it is appropriate to decide whether a statute permits a cause of action against a State before deciding whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit.
	COLE V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9069) Facts and Procedural History Cole is a tobacco dealer. Cole was prosecuted and acquitted of criminal charges in connection with this discrepancy. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges. He argues that he has already been acquitted of criminal charges in connection with marketing over quota tobacco and the civil penalties are a second attempt at punishment for the same conduct.
	COLE V. DEP'T OF AGRIC. (1/21/1998, NO. 96-9069) Facts and Procedural History Cole is a tobacco dealer. Cole was prosecuted and acquitted of criminal charges in connection with this discrepancy. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges. He argues that he has already been acquitted of criminal charges in connection with marketing over quota tobacco and the civil penalties are a second attempt at punishment for the same conduct.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the order certifying this punitive damages class must be vacated because there is no evidence by which the district court could ascertain the limits of either the fund or the aggregate value of punitive claims against it. Thus plaintiffs have failed to satisfy one of the presumptively necessary conditions for limited fund treatment under Ortiz v. While we expressly limit our holding to the conclusion that class certification is incompatible with Ortiz. The circumstances warrant some discussion of whether the order is incompatible with the Supreme Court's intervening decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Are published together at In re Simon II Litigation. Will be referred to collectively as the
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
	OPINION/ORDER The answers provided by the California Supreme Court to the certified questions will be followed by this court. All further proceedings in these cases are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme Court. These cases are withdrawn from submission until further notice from this court. CAPTION AND COUNSEL The captions of the cases are as follows:1 MARIA CANNATA. Defendants Appellees Although these appeals have not been consolidated. We have combined them for purposes of presenting a question for certification to the California Supreme Court. 1 GRISHAM v. Maria Cannata and Leslie Grisham are deemed the petitioners in this request because they appeal the district courts' rulings on these issues. B. The names and address of counsel for the parties are as follows: For Maria Cannata: Martin Louis Stanley. If the presumption of knowledge of tobacco's harms is not rebuttable. If the presumption is rebuttable. Where evidence will be considered. The decision of the California Supreme Court on the certified question will
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellee. Judgment was entered in the United States District Court for the District of Maine following a jury trial. The tobacco was transported 3 3 surreptitiously into Canada through the Passamaquoddy Reservation in Pleasant Point. Passamaquoddy Tribe member Anthony Stanley testified that on April 15 he was called to discuss some tobacco business by Beverly Pierro. Who was then serving as chief of police of the Passamaquoddy Tribe (
	OPINION/ORDER Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as
	OPINION/ORDER I. Lung cancer was identified in the 1930s and its incidence rose sharply in that same decade. Concluding that the latter was due mostly to the former. He also noted that the
	BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP V. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED With him on the brief were John A. Of counsel were Marc G. With him on the brief were Michael D. Of counsel on the brief were Donald R. Also of counsel on the brief was William D. ) were invalid for obviousness over the prior art. 11 of the Luke patent were infringed by the Virginia Slims SuperSlims (". S infringement was willful up until receipt of oral opinions in March and May of 1989. 11 of the Luke patent were not invalid due to an alleged public use. 11 are invalid. Was an employee of British American Tobacco Co. S work was focused on using less tobacco in a cigarette and thereby reducing manufacturing expenses. The application was reissued as the Luke patent on March 1. Of which only claim 1 is independent. The only claims involved in the present litigation are claims 1. The central limitation in the Luke patent is cigarette circumference. Which is limited to 10 19 mm. Traditional cigarettes have circumferences of 23 27 mm.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. The Statute Regulation is not a stranger to the tobacco industry. Existing state law is not much more intrusive. Only Minnesota and Texas have required any reporting of tobacco ingredients. When Section 307B was enacted as a means of regulating the tobacco industry. Pro consumer bill that will give people all the information they need to make educated decisions about what they put in their bodies
	OPINION/ORDER Summary judgment in favor of Philip Morris was granted. B. District Court Proceedings This action was timely and properly removed from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. On grounds that (1) the strict product liability claim was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. (2) the fraudulent concealment claim was preempted by the same federal statute. Evidence was lacking that the decedent would have acted differently if Philip Morris had disclosed material information concerning the health effects of smoking. (3) the fraud claim was not preempted under federal law but evidence was absent that the decedent saw. (4) the conspiracy claim necessarily failed because it was a derivative of other underlying claims. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit. An issue is genuine if a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmoving party.
	OPINION/ORDER Edell is widely recognized as a preeminent legal authority on litigaIn an affidavit submitted by Edell in the present action. Edell was the first to bring a successful suit to verdict against tobacco companies on behalf of a smoker. The litigation proposal assured the Maryland AG that if the Angelos Firm was retained. The amount of legal fees that Edell and his law firm would receive for their participation in the Maryland AG Action was always an issue to be determined solely between Edell and his law firm and the Angelos Firm. The dispute in the present case is over the amount the Angelos Firm agreed to pay Edell and his law firm for their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action. 218 in attorneys' fees (based upon varying hourly rates) they have already received from the Angelos Firm in connection with the Maryland AG Action. They never would have continued their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action had the Angelos Firm not made these repeated promises and the Angelos Firm fully understands this.
	OPINION/ORDER It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc shall be. It hereby is. Denied. 9 The panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of opinion it is without merit. It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing shall be. It hereby is.
	OPINION/ORDER Is an injunction. Whether an interlocutory order denying seizure is thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. з 1292(a)(1). Because the district court's denial of a motion for an ex parte seizure order is neither an automatically appealable literal refusal of an injunction nor a practical denial of ultimate injunctive relief. All proceedings so far have been ex parte and filed under seal. The defendant is designated as
	MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER He was 14 or 15 years old. Burton did not go to physicians for check ups and claimed to have never been sick. It was not until the summer of 1993. His treating physician informed him that his circulation problems were caused by his cigarette smoking and advised him to
	MCCLENDON V. GEORGIA DEP'T OF COMMUNITY HEALTH (8/17/2001, NO. 00-15005) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for Colour Library Books. Were on brief for The Winston Company. Although the photograph was meant to appear in a coffee table book titled Boston: City of Dreams. It was never published or distributed. Provides information about dining and entertainment in France and is sponsored by the Cooperation Gesellschaft fuer Markendiversifikation mbh. At least 305 copies of various French magazines containing the advertisements were distributed to. At least 183 of these were sold from. Fellow police officers told Noonan that a magazine with a picture of him on the back cover was circulating. As a result of what Noonan felt was an attack on his reputation. Defendant Lintas:Paris is a French corporation. Reynolds Tobacco (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered
	OPINION/ORDER Hawaii will receive approximately $1.38 billion over the next 25 years. The plaintiffs are Medicaid recipients1 who suffer from smoking related illnesses. The State of Hawaii is required by 42 U.S.C. з 1396k(b) to distribute that
	00-1292 -- HARRIS V. OWENS -- 09/10/2001 The historic 1998 agreement between most of the states and the major tobacco companies was a milestone in the ongoing attempt to address this issue. It is perhaps not surprising that there has been considerable controversy about the status of the settlement funds. In this case. After the state has reimbursed itself for the benefits it has paid out it must then turn over the excess funds attributed to the Medicaid settlement to the individuals whose claims were settled. Contrary to a number of district courts that have considered similar cases. We hold that this suit is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint in this case.
	OPINION/ORDER Stanley Brewer was convicted of the rape of Jessica Tobacco. of ineffective assistance of counsel. motion for new trial. The convicted defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. The result of the proceeding would have been Id. at 694. scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly different. Particularly where counsel's trial strategy is in issue. Will not second guess strategic decisions or exploit the benefits of hindsight.
	OPINION/ORDER Tobacco was charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 113(a)(6) and assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 113(a)(3). II A Tobacco challenges his conviction by arguing the jury instructions were misleading and contradictory.
	OPINION/ORDER Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that two Kentucky statutes have effectively prohibited Tritent from doing business in the state. The statutes were enacted to effectuate and enforce the provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). Tritent alleges that because it is The Honorable William H. Tritent alleged that the Kentucky statutes are preempted by the Sherman Act. The general theory of these lawsuits was that the cigarettes produced by the tobacco industry contributed to health problems among the population. Lorillard are referred to in the MSA as the Original Participating Manufacturers (OPMs). Were to prevent youth smoking. Approximately 41 additional tobacco companies have joined the MSA. Are bound by the MSA's restrictions and must make payments to the settling states as set forth in the MSA. The OPMs and the SPMs are referred to as the Participating Manufacturers (PMs). Any tobacco company choosing not to participate in the MSA is referred to as a Nonparticipating Manufacturer (NPM). The amount of money that the PMs are required to annually contribute to the states varies according to several factors.
	OPINION/ORDER Contending that they are arbitrary and capricious because gross revenue is defined to include pass through funds in this case. The district court held that the applicable regulations were
	OPINION/ORDER Is evidenced by the division of the Alabama Supreme Court that is reflected in a multitude of separate concurring and dissenting opinions and statements. We are grateful to the Alabama Supreme Court for the valuable guidance that it has provided us both in the decision it issued in this case and also in the other decision it released on the same day in a similar tobacco case where related state law issues had been certified by another panel of this Court. A brief background statement and discussion of some general matters will be helpful. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Fed. Those alleged facts are that Carolyn Watts Spain started smoking cigarettes as a teenager in 1962. She became addicted to nicotine early on and was unaware at the time that she was becoming addicted. Smoking was the proximate cause of her lung cancer. Which was diagnosed on August 15. This means that for a period of two years after her death Spain may bring whatever claims his wife could have brought on the date of her death.
	MICHAEL J. ADANG V. DAVID A. FISCHHOFF Argued for appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the case was properly removed to federal court. The propriety of remand is the only issue before us. As it was in the district court. Which permits removal where a person is sued for actions taken under the direction of a federal officer. Philip Morris claims it satisfies the requirements of the federal officer statute because it was acting under the direct control of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) when it engaged in the allegedly unlawful conduct. Which uses a smoking machine that takes a two second puff on a cigarette every sixty seconds until the cigarette is smoked to a specified length. The FTC was aware that the testing method did not measure the amount of tar or nicotine that an individual smoker may receive. The purpose of the test was not to replicate human smoking but to provide a basis for comparison. Which was conditioned on suspension of the formal rulemaking proceedings. Our review of that denial is de novo. (3) have a colorable federal defense. The Supreme Court explained why the federal officer removal statute was not meant to be given a
	UNIV. OF S. ALABAMA V. AM. TOBACCO CO. (2/22/1999, NO. 97-6680) Circuit Judge: The central issue raised on appeal is a question of sequence or ordering: whether the district court should have first addressed Appellant University of South Alabama's (
	UNITED FOOD V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (8/22/2000, NO. 99-13476) Is an employee health and welfare benefit plan organized under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
	DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13476.man.html">UNITED FOOD V. PHILIP MORRIS, INC. (8/22/2000, NO. 99-13476)<BR></A><BR> Is an employee health and welfare benefit plan organized under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-6680.man.html">UNIV. OF S. ALABAMA V. AM. TOBACCO CO. (2/22/1999, NO. 97-6680)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The central issue raised on appeal is a question of sequence or ordering: whether the district court should have first addressed Appellant University of South Alabama's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1410.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-8452.opa.html">DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7213a.html">REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA V. PHILIP MORRIS<BR></A><BR> Et al.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0283n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sworn in as the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee. 1 No. 06 5148 S&M Brands. S&M Brands is a tobacco product manufacturer and ITP is an importer of tobacco products. The Appellants claim that the enactment and enforcement of the Tobacco Statutes have had the effect of implementing an illegal combination or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4304.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND No. 01 4304 Eby Brown is a wholesale distributor of tobacco products. Such that if Eby Brown's tobacco prices are more competitive than other wholesale distributors. It will gain the lion's share of the food item and sundry business. Wisconsin statutes recognize two distinct types of cigarette wholesalers: permit holders and jobbers.1 A permit holder is licensed to affix revenue stamps upon cigarette packages. Jobbers are not permitted to affix such stamps and must instead purchase stamped products from permit holders. EbyBrown is a permit holder. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-7213a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Timothy M. Sullivan were on the brief of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Jonathan S. We hold that we are without appellate jurisdiction to review the orders the district court already has issued and that we have no warrant to prohibit the district court from remanding to state court those cases upon which it has not yet acted. Twenty nine other foreign states or subdivisions have filed similar actions not now before us in state and federal courts around the United States. The court ruled that Guatemala's claims were not viable because Guatemala could not establish that its alleged inju ries. That is. Were proximately caused by any misconduct on the part of the tobacco companies. The cases under review are unlike those the district court dismissed only in that they were filed originally in state courts and therefore reached the district court after the tobacco companies removed them to a federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1441. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211727.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022906p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The MSA was entered into 1. This suit is just one in a series attacking the MSA and statutes passed pursuant to it. These suits have been unsuccessful. We note that the Majors are not named defendants in this particular litigation as this court concluded in an earlier decision that the Majors were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. Lorillard Tobacco. 5 Bedell and will be repeated here only to the extent necessary for the discussion and analysis. The MSA was negotiated after various lawsuits were either brought or threatened against the Majors and other tobacco companies by States seeking to recover Medicaid funds that they spent to treat tobacco related diseases. Pennsylvania filed suit against the Majors in April 1997 and the suit was settled as part of the MSA.3 Under the MSA. Provisions that the Plaintiffs allege were to be funded by the payment by wholesalers and consumers of artificially high prices for cigarettes. Plaintiffs further contend that after the MSA was entered into. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczMjUgcmVtYW5kLnBkZg==/02-7325%20remand.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-10963.man.html">TILLMAN V. REYNOLDS TOBACCO (6/13/2001, NO. 00-10963)<BR></A><BR> As Executrix under the Last Will and Testament of Kalen Oliver Tillman. Circuit Judges.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7064a.html">SCOTT BENJAMIN W. V. DC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1460.html">HOHENBERG BROS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996334.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Plaintiff Frank Linwood Mills was a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. Plaintiff brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. з 1983 alleging he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff was confined at four North Carolina correctional institutions. Plaintiff was admitted to Southern Correctional Institution in Troy. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred three different times. Plaintiff filed for2 mal grievances that were all similar in nature. Are pertinent to this appeal.1 At Southern. Plaintiff was assigned to one of twelve bunk beds located in a day room where inmates were permitted to smoke. Plaintiff was transferred to Wayne on January 2. 2 the superintendent of Southern formally responded to plaintiff's initial grievance and stated that a preference for smoking or non smoking was not a determining factor in bed assignments because of the computerized ventilation system. Although he did complain about a previous fall in Halifax County and was treated for that by Dr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxNzkgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-9179%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxNzlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9179_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs appellants are Grand River Enterprises Six Nations. Defendants appellees are thirty one current and former state attorneys general sued in their official capacities. Appellants argue that these dismissals were erroneous. Which was necessary to permit this appeal to be heard. We conclude that the district court was correct in granting Rule 54(b) The five territories are American Samoa. The result was a Master Settlement Agreement. Previously settled with twenty two of the states and was not party to the MSA. Which manufactured approximately 97.5% of all The cigarettes sold in the country when the MSA was signed. Are referred to in the MSA as Original Participating Manufacturers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-10963.man.html">TILLMAN V. REYNOLDS TOBACCO (6/13/2001, NO. 00-10963)<BR></A><BR> As Executrix under the Last Will and Testament of Kalen Oliver Tillman. Circuit Judges.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1850p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Virginia administrative center was the plaintiffs' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0449p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was bifurcated into a liability phase. Which was tried in front of a jury in the fall of 1999. Which was tried by the court in January 2001. The jury found that Alpine had advertised that its air cleaning products removed over 60 separately titled but in many cases overlapping This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0357p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rains's suicide indicated that the .25 caliber ammunition used in his handgun was purchased from Bend of the River.1 Although appellant claims that it does not recollect ever selling ammunition to Mr. A sales receipt and cashed check are evidence that William West. The ATF served appellant with Notices of Revocation of its four federal firearms licenses for selling handgun ammunition in violation of the Gun Control Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041051P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Richard Christianson was a participant in Poly America's Medical Benefit Plan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1361a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under з 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. з 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-9079.man.html">ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079)<BR></A><BR> Martin Luther King's famous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-7007.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief was Robert V. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. Stoll ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0164p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This defense is not yet appropriate. The court found the majority of the seized items were drug paraphernalia and thus contraband. Arguing: (1) that the definition of drug paraphernalia contained in 21 U.S.C. з 863 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the seized items. It was a violation of due process for the government to seize the items at issue. For the following reasons we affirm the district court's holding that the merchandise was drug paraphernalia that as contraband could not be returned to Music City. Seizing several truck loads of what was determined to be drug paraphernalia. The court found that Music City had put on no credible evidence refuting the government's contention that the snuff dispensers were used primarily to administer drugs. The court noted that while they were multi use items. They were housed in a warehouse containing other drug paraphernalia. The court concluded that the items at issue were primarily intended or designed for use with controlled substances. 869 F.2d at 958н59 (evaluating the evidence considered by the district court and concluding the court had not erred in concluding that the items at issue qualified as drug paraphernalia and thus were properly subject to civil forfeiture under the Customs Statute). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-9079.man.html">ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079)<BR></A><BR> Martin Luther King's famous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </span><sup>1</sup>We are grateful for the amicus curiae briefs filed by several\ state attorneys general. </span><sup>2</sup>Tobacco products are broadly defined to include </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10034.opn.html">MITCHELL V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (6/19/2002, NO. 01-10034)<BR></A><BR> The defendants removed the action to the district court because the parties were of diverse citizenship and Mitchell prayed for damages in excess of $75. (3) he is entitled to actual and general damages of $10 million for his pain. Mitchell filed a motion for a default judgment against Liggett Group based on its failure to respond to his complaint.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10034.opn.html">MITCHELL V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (6/19/2002, NO. 01-10034)<BR></A><BR> The defendants removed the action to the district court because the parties were of diverse citizenship and Mitchell prayed for damages in excess of $75. (3) he is entitled to actual and general damages of $10 million for his pain. Mitchell filed a motion for a default judgment against Liggett Group based on its failure to respond to his complaint.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/001368p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/012955.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Appellants1 raise three issues on appeal: 1) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity for the ETS claims. 2) whether appellants are entitled to qualified immunity on the 1. The appellants are Stanley Taylor (Commissioner of the Department of Correction). All ranks are those held by appellants at the time of filing of the complaint. 2 retaliation and excessive force claims. 3) whether appellants in supervisory positions are entitled to qualified immunity on all claims because they lacked notice of the underlying events. We will affirm the District Court's denial of summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND2 Appellee Roger Atkinson is a blind. Diabetic prisoner who was housed at Delaware's Multi Purpose Criminal Justice Facility ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-7093a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter C. With him on the brief were Daniel Edelman and Roger M. On the briefs for appellants and amicus curiae Guatemalan National League Against Cancer were George M. With him on the brief were Peter C. Geller were on the brief in No. 00 7023 of amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The court must determine whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated proximate cause in seeking. Similar claims have been considered and rejected as too remote by seven other circuits. Because we agree with the other circuits that the alleged injuries of the third party payors are too remote to have been proximately caused by the defendants' alleged conduct. Rejected the view that such damages are entirely derivative of the harm suffered by the funds' beneficiaries. The district court concluded that foreseeable harm to the funds stemming from defendants' alleged conduct was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Twenty nine full service wholesalers that are also direct distributors under distribution agreements with defendant appellee Philip Morris USA. Cigarette brands are divided into four price categories or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7093a.html">SEIU V. PHILIP MORRIS<BR></A><BR> Wachtell argued the cause in No. 00 7093 for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-4023.htm">01-4023 -- VILLAGRANA V. GRAHAM -- 03/06/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Linda K. Because plaintiff Villagrana's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff Malm's claims are foreclosed by our decision in <em>Harris v. The State's lawsuit was part of a wave of litigation brought by the various states against tobacco companies. The states will receive payments from the tobacco companies over several decades. <em>Id.</em> at 175 191. <p> In November 1999. The plaintiffs argued that they should be permitted to intervene into the tobacco litigation because the class they represented was entitled to part of the MSA proceeds. Holding that the motion was untimely and that plaintiffs were barred from suing the State by the Eleventh Amendment. <em>See</em> <em>id.</em> at 259 67. Plaintiffs Villagrana and Malm are smokers who received Medicaid benefits through the State for smoking related illnesses. Holding that the MSA did not settle any individual claims and therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to any portion of the settlement proceeds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/00-1069.htm">00-1069 -- NIXON V. BROOKS -- 12/27/2000<BR></A><BR> Brought this <em>Bivens</em> action against federal prison officials and others alleging constitutional violations arising from his exposure to second hand tobacco smoke while he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Littleton. Nixon was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed to either pay the partial fee or show why he could not do so within thirty days. When he missed this deadline his action was dismissed. If the motion is filed within ten days of the district court's entry of judgment. It is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. <em>Id.</em> When. It is filed more than ten days after entry of judgment. It is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. <em>Id.</em> An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not itself preserve for appellate review the merits of the underlying judgment. Raises for review only the district court's denial of the motion to reconsider.<em> Id.</em> Relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and is warranted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. <em>Cashner v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/03-4140.htm">03-4140 -- ACEVEDO V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. -- 10/02/2003<BR></A><BR> This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Louie M. Reynolds is a private entity. In the apparent misapprehension that his suit was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees. <p> Seeing no error in the district court's analysis. McConnell <p> Circuit Judge <p> <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-12390.man.html">DOW JONES & CO. V. KAYE (7/12/2001, NO. 00-12390)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-4036a.htm">99-4036A -- ASTON V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021586.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fattahi's application was forwarded to ATF's Richmond field office. The association's counsel informed Angelo that commercial activities were generally prohibited in residential units absent special permission. If Angelo told him which specific unit was at issue. If Fattahi's FFL were granted. After Angelo was deposed. Was granted. We must affirm if the undisputed facts establish that [ATF] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-12390.man.html">DOW JONES & CO. V. KAYE (7/12/2001, NO. 00-12390)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the defendants have failed to produce evidence that justifies the restrictions on commercial speech imposed by the ordinance. Pagan is a resident of Glendale and formerly the owner of a 1970 Mercury Cougar that he wanted to sell. Notified Pagan that the sign was a violation of Glendale Traffic Code з 76.06. Was ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a satisfactory resolution of his dispute with the Village. Determined that Chief Fruchey was entitled to qualified immunity. Pagan has waived any argument that the district court's decision respecting Chief Fruchey was incorrect. 723 (6th Cir. 2006) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1965.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judgment was therefore\ entered in favor of both Altria and Philip Morris. Explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-13482.opn.html">THIS THAT AND THE OTHER GIFT AND TOBACCO, INC. V. COBB COUNTY, GA (3/18/2002, NO. 01-13482)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the advertising ban violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' licenses and permits subsequently were renewed in 1999 and 2000.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-13482.opn.html">THIS THAT AND THE OTHER GIFT AND TOBACCO, INC. V. COBB COUNTY, GA (3/18/2002, NO. 01-13482)<BR></A><BR> Because we conclude that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the advertising ban violates the First Amendment. The plaintiffs' licenses and permits subsequently were renewed in 1999 and 2000.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/973922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Make unlimited independent expenditures (that is. The district court held that the contribution limits of $300 for certain statewide offices and of $100 for state judicial offices were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment's prohibition against limitations on the freedom of speech. Finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to contest the limit on contributions to independent expenditure committees. That the provision authorizing relevant actions by local governments was not ripe for a constitutional challenge. I. Standing is. A plaintiff must have suffered an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Chippewa is a corporation chartered under the laws of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (a federally recognized tribe) and located on an Indian reservation in Michigan. When the Michigan State Police stopped a truck containing tobacco products that were being shipped to Chippewa by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 03 1445 > . The truck's driver was Andrew Arch. Which is a violation of TPTA. The TPTA statutory scheme requires police to give notice to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022461.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the PTO's 2002 advertising campaign to alert the public about </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001836P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were her brand of choice until 1981. Boerner was diagnosed with lung cancer in July of 1996. Boerner was a relatively healthy woman until she developed cancer. Was plagued by cigarette cravings each time and. Because she was not particularly serious about quitting. She was unaware of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. No warnings were given. The congressionally mandated warning that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/98-1070.htm">98-1070 -- RICHARDSON V. BAKERY CONFECTIONARY & TOBACCO WORKERS LOCAL NO. 26 -- 08/13/1998<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Robert Richardson filed a pro se complaint contending that defendants and the district court violated his rights in a prior civil action in which the court granted summary judgment for these same defendants. The nature of the prior action and its procedural history are set out in the order of the district court granting defendants' motion to dismiss the present action for failure to state a claim. The district court then correctly determined that section 1746 is not applicable to a civil case and dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. <p> Mr. Defendants are not subject to liability under section 1983 because they are not state actors and have no authority to act under color of state law. <p> After a thorough review of the record and Mr. Granting the motion to dismiss. <p> The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is <strong>AFFIRMED.</strong> <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> Stephanie K. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/062504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the requested relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Other tobacco companies which were not parties to the original settlement were encouraged to join the MSA. The other named parties did not join the motion for preliminary injunction and are not parties to this appeal. Funds deposited by NPMs are to be held in escrow for twenty five years. Payments are capped at an upper limit. NPMs are entitled to a refund of any deposits made in excess of this upper limit. The only claim to survive was a challenge to the Amendment's retroactive imposition of increased escrow obligations based on cigarettes sold in 2004. Seeking to have this court consider the merits of its underlying constitutional and antitrust claims. Its appeal was dismissed for lack of a final reviewable order. Participation in the MSA would have put Grand River in compliance with the Escrow 3 Statute and made escrow deposits unnecessary. Its application was not immediately granted. Since approval by the settling states and the Participating Manufacturers was required. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/04-5207a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inasmuch as the preemption question was clearly controlled by our earlier opinion in Palmer v. The error was harmless. Did Kotler's notice of appeal addressed to PMI and Liggett (No. 90 1400) preserve the preemption issue for appellate review?2 This is. The very issue which we previously 2It is crystal clear that plaintiff never intended to appeal the preemption ruling vis a vis ATC and she has not made any developed argument to the contrary. THE PREEMPTION ISSUE PMI and Liggett argue that the preemption issue is not properly before us because plaintiff failed to direct her notice of appeal to the district court's May. A A This point is governed by Fed. The rule's commands are jurisdictional and mandatory. Noncompliance with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-5210b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. others had not shown that they had a legally protectable interest at stake in the litigation and therefore were not entitled to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Because we conclude that they have not rebutted the presumption that the city government adequately represents their interests as citizens. Which regulates tobacco advertising in shops that offer tobacco products for The announced purpose of the ordinance was to protect children under The ordinance the age of eighteen from being influenced to use tobacco. limited shops to the use of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212605.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants contend that: (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. (5) the forfeiture order was improper. The facts in this case are many and detailed. Florida.2 Mauricio was primarily responsible for advertising GEC's services. Co defendant Wilder Moreno was GEC's manager. Is the father of Mauricio and Orlando. A money transmittal company is a non bank financial institution that sells money orders. A money transmittal company that operated under GEC's money transmittal license and was co owned by Mauricio Puche and Fernando Torres. The conversations were always conducted in Spanish. Were arrested and charged with conspiracy to money launder. To determine whether a rational jury could have found defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants assert that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that law enforcement made a representation that would have reasonably led defendants to believe that the money to be wired came from illegal drug sales. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021595.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 counsel's name is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2112.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000). 1 2 No. 02 2112 Prison officials at Indiana Correctional Industrial Facility investigated allegations that Northern and two other inmates were smuggling tobacco into the facility with the help of a staff member. Because he was convicted of an offense different from the offense identified in the original notice. His due process rights were violated. That the reviewing authority's modification of the charge on appeal was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5210a.html">U.S. V. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED<BR></A><BR> Sheffler argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-7064a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief was Athan T. Dawson and Smith were prisoners of the District of Columbia in the Lorton Correctional Complex in Virginia. The District's appeal is mainly on the ground that the court misapplied the standards articulat ed in Helling v. None of the three plaintiffs is still jailed at Lorton. Scott completed his sentence and was released more than a year ago. Dawson and Smith are now serving time at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. They were trans ferred to Ohio in September 1997 pursuant to s 11201(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self Government Im provement Act of 1997. A prisoner's transfer or release from a prison moots any claim he might have for equitable relief arising out of the conditions of his confinement in that prison.1 It does 1 See Cameron v. 1363 (11th Cir. 1984). not matter that Smith and Dawson are still being held under the authority of the District of Columbia. Neither he nor the other two plaintiffs are before us asking for damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5OTYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4996-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Against enforcement of New York legislation that imposes burdens on firms that have not joined the Master Settlement Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014463A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arthur Hilts (collectively the Defendants) were convicted of using interstate wires for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues relating to the importation and sale of liquor. No doubt this smuggling operation was spawned to supply a black market for liquor in Canada that had been created when. The store owners were not prosecuted for violations of United States Department of Treasury Regulations which required that they record and report bulk sales of alcohol. 1 4 UNITED STATES v. Border crossings were monitored electronically. Several vehicles that were registered to drivers involved in the scheme failed to stop for a second inspection when requested. ATF agents and Royal Canadian Mounted Police also conducted surveillance of David and Carl Pasquantino and their associates loading liquor in Maryland and unloading it in Canada after it was smuggled through Canadian customs. Marked bottles of liquor were recovered in Canada. The Defendants were indicted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/02-5210a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the motion/petition was Garyowen P. With her on the opposition were Stephen D. That defen dants have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/001368.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court's charge to the jury was insufficiently specific and LePage's's damages proof was speculative.2 The district court granted 3M's motion for 1. The plaintiffs in this action are LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Company. Both are appellees and cross appellants. 679 to which interest was to be added. We will affirm the district court's order granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033151p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Either that (1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974765.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 $100. Each was issued jointly to Wells and a third party payee. Schweitzer's usual practice was to send Wells comptroller warrants whose face values were twice the amount requested. 1 Evidence was introduced tending to show that some of the banks had difficulty determining that the documents were fraudulent. 2 There was evidence that two of the warrants were accepted by banks. 3 Soon after Wells returned to North Carolina. Wells sent cover letters along with the warrants to notify creditors that the warrants were intended to satisfy debts owed to them. Any additional funds were to be refunded to Wells. Liability was to extend for 99 years. Wells was notified by mail of a rejection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0001n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that no genuine dispute of material fact remains for trial and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. For approximately twenty years and was the supervisor of Officer Marcos Madrigal ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5491DE098B65E4588256C930002145D/$file/0115986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> *** District Judge. Michael Willden is substituted for his predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an action brought by Nevada residents who allegedly suffered smoking related illnesses for which they received state administered medical care under the Medicaid program. They seek certain benefits from Nevada or its officials arising out of the multi state tobacco settlement reached between major tobacco companies and 46 States. [1] The plaintiffs' claim is indistinguishable from that brought by similar Hawai'i plaintiffs in Cardenas v. Cardenas held that the plaintiffs' claims of entitlement to any part of the settlement funds were wholly barred by 42 U.S.C. 4 ANDERSON v. The plaintiffs here contend that they are entitled to notice and an accounting when Nevada attempts to recoup Medicaid payments from the estates of plaintiffs by imposing and enforcing liens on their property. An accounting of the amount of settlement recovery Nevada received for the medical care of the plaintiffs from whom recoupment is sought.1 [2] This claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/37270C3FEA6EDCBB88256E3D0066BC9A/$file/0470578o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/992843P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. the Trustees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0037n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of whom claim tobacco related injuries and are recipients of the Tennessee Medicaid program. Plaintiffs further argue that the litigation resulting in the MSA was essentially a subrogation action to recover medical expenses paid on behalf of Plaintiffs as TennCare recipients. That the Plaintiffs have not been made whole for their injuries. The district court dismissed the Section 1983 claims because the plaintiffs could not identify any property right protected by the Constitution or by federal law of which they have been deprived. The district court held that the state law claims failed because they were wholly dependent upon a finding that the MSA lawsuit was a subrogation action. Which it was not. We have carefully reviewed the district court's opinions. We are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0220p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Amouri's Grand Foods Page 2 Background Lorillard manufactures and sells cigarettes under a variety of brand names (J.A. 55).1 One of its most popular brands is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5171a.html">BROWN & WILLIAMSON V. WAXMAN HENRY A.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5358a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Barry H. With him on the briefs were Peter D. I. These interlocutory appeals are the latest in a series of appeals to this court arising out of a civil RICO action filed in 1999 by the United States against several tobacco companies. Which prior to 1999 was a wholly owned subsidiary of BATCo. BATAS was known as W.D. & H.O. BATAS is not a full party to the suit. 4 In March 2004. The witness list summarized Gulson's expected testimony as follows: Fred Gulson is expected to testify regarding BATCo's . . . document management and control policies and conduct including efforts to suppress information by. A prospective intervenor </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA649965A29A8D8988257265005DDE9D/$file/0416976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Secretary delegated this authority to what was then called the Bureau of Alcohol. Because any distinction between the two Bureaus is irrelevant to the disposition of this case. We will use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-4058.htm">00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA5MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0933-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a member of this panel. Are issues not easily resolved by reference to existing state law. Because we agree with the district court that ITC lacks standing to pursue a false advertising claim against Although the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0473a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. Northwest's prices were below its relevant costs for these routes. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0744p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1992 as a term of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014463.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 9/30/02 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Circuit Judge: Appellants were indicted and convicted of engaging in a scheme to defraud the governments of Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues applicable to the importation and sale of liquor. They assert that the district court erred in denying their pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment because a scheme to defraud a foreign government of duties and taxes is not cognizable under the wire fraud statute. Appellants also contend that their motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the evidence presented at trial was 2 1 I. While all applicable Maryland and federal taxes were paid on the liquor. There is no evidence that any Canadian taxes or duties were ever paid on the liquor that was transported into Canada. Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) was alerted to the scheme after agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034839np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He alleged that Brown & Williamson was responsible for his contracting. We will affirm on somewhat different grounds than given by the District Court. 2 I. When he was eleven or twelve years old. He testified that he smoked Kools because that was the brand that his parents smoked. He responded </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1517.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert G. With him on the biref were Michael J. We affirm.</p> <p>BACKGROUND</p> <p>Appellant IFF is a New York corporation engaged in the business of producing and marketing flavor and fragrance essences. The specimens did not have an ". The 'XXXX' designations are themselves not part of the mark.". That amendment of the drawings was not the real issue in the rejection. The crux of the matter was that the ". Elements and that there was no formal PTO policy concerning the registerability of ". Conducting a complete and thorough search is extremely difficult. . . . A comprehensive search for all or even most permutations of applicant's marks is next to impossible. Applicant's definition of the phantom elements in these cases is extremely broad and may include any herb. Now before us is IFF's appeal of the Board's decision affirming the final rejection of the three applications for the ". We uphold the Board's factual findings unless they are arbitrary. Ct. 1816 (1999) (holding that scope of review of PTO's findings is subject to Administrative Procedure Act (". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013064ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. 2 BARKETT. This unjustified expansion of з 1997e(e) to prevent prisoners from seeking remedies for violations that predate and have no relation to the events leading to their current incarceration finds little support in the language. I 3 believe that en banc review of the panel's decision is warranted to reconsider the appropriate reach of з 1997e(e). Or History of the PLRA The starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself. When the meaning of a statute is unambiguous. There is no need to examine legislative history. Since </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1326.html">B-WEST IMPORTS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/01-1046a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Edward M. With him on the brief was Nathaniel I. Rabinowitz were on the brief for intervenor United Steel. Petitioners contend that MSHA did not have sufficient evidence that DPM presents a risk to miners' health. Petitioners also assert that MSHA unlawfully granted medical evaluation and transfer rights to workers who are required to wear respirators. That MSHA's final implementation timetable was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rules. Diesel exhaust is comprised of both gasses and particulate matter. The agency determined that miners were exposed to very high levels of DPM. MSHA concluded that it was necessary to regulate DPM exposure to protect miners from these risks. The agency determined that there was no reliable way to measure DPM directly for compliance purposes. Total carbon was deemed to be a reliable surrogate because there was evidence in the record that TC makes up approximately 80 85% of DPM. That this is a consistent relationship. Those rules were not challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-3275.wpd.html">OWEN V. MAGAW<BR></A><BR> Tobacco and Firearms' refusal to process a convicted felon's application for restoration of firearms privileges where that refusal is the result of Congress' denial of funds for the necessary background investigations and action on such applications. Owen was convicted in 1993 on two counts of filing false income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1). He was sentenced on each conviction to a term of one year and one day. His convictions were affirmed. Owen is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. However federal law provides a method by which convicted felons can apply for restoration of firearms privileges: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/991503.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was thereby precluded from owning or possessingfirearms under 18 U. S 922(g)(1) because he was a convicted 2 felon. We will therefore reverse the district court's order based upon our decision in Rice v. I. Palma was formerly a marketing director for various casinos in Atlantic City. While employed in that capacity he gave favorable treatment to various entities that were then doing business with the casinos in return for payoffs that totaled more than $100. It is undisputed that Palma successfully completed all terms and conditions of his sentence. That he was granted early discharge from his probation. It is also undisputed that Palma has not had any adverse contact with law enforcement since successfully completing his sentence. Palma was employed by Palma/Lazar Associates as a real estate appraiser. Persons convicted of crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment in excess of one year are prohibited from possessing. The Gun Control Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to lift the firearms disability imposed under S 922(g)(1) if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3634_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Republic and NATC are competing distributors of rollyour own cigarette papers. Stating that Republic was violating NATC's patent and trademark rights and that. NATC wrote a letter to all of its customers (many were also Republic customers). It also sought a declaratory judgment that its marketing programs were lawful. NATC responded that the assets were in fact encumbered and that it could only post $3 million from a revolving line of credit. 000 was a one time. Arguing that (1) NATC was not entitled to costs incurred prior to appeal because it was not the prevailing party in the district court. It said that Rule No. 05 3634 5 39(e) allowed it to award costs during appeal and that Local Rule 54.1(c) allowed it to award costs before and after appeal.2 It also rejected Republic's contention that NATC's costs in securing the judgment were unreasonably high. It found credible Brunson's assertion that NATC attempted to obtain a bond from a bonding company but was unable to do so because it had no unencumbered assets to pledge as collateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Numerous other plaintiffs have brought similar challenges to state statutes passed in conjunction with the multi state settlement. The precise question with which we are currently presented is a narrow one. The payments of the OPMs of which each settling state is entitled to a fixed percentage (that is. An
	OPINION/ORDER We will reverse and remand. Is the brand name of a blood thinning drug prescribed for the prevention and treatment of blood clots.1 Treating physicians carefully monitor patients taking the drug because. The cumulative effect of these attacks was to raise Barr Laboratories' cost to enter the anti coagulant market and to disable its market penetration. The by product claim brought by the individual plaintiffs is that. They have paid inflated prices for Coumadin. The District Court granted in part and denied in part DuPont's motion to dismiss Barr Laboratories' lawsuit.2 The class complaints were dismissed in their entirety. The only issue relevant to this appeal is the District Court's decision that the class plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief under section 16 of the Clayton Act. It failed to assert injury of the type the Sherman Act was designed to prevent. The class did not have standing to request injunctive relief. Our jurisdiction to review this dismissal is authorized by 28 U.S.C. P. 12(b)(6) is plenary.
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Is secured to them. At issue in this appeal is whether the Government's basis for maintaining a CCTA prosecution against the Smiskins their alleged failure to comply with the State of Washington's requirement that individuals give notice to state officials prior to transporting unstamped cigarettes within the State violated the Right to Travel provision of the Yakama Treaty. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Background Defendants Kato and Harry Smiskin are members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Eleventh Circuit
	OPINION/ORDER Is one of the dealers that received this demand letter. Bob's Gun Shop also asserted that the criteria used by the Bureau to target the selected dealers were arbitrary and capricious. 2274 (2002). 2 Bob's Gun Shop suggests this case is moot because the Bureau changed some of the selection criteria for its new demand letter issued in 2002. The change in criteria does not affect the issue in this case whether the criteria used to select Bob's Gun Shop to receive the 2000 demand letter were arbitrary and capricious. 1 BLAUSTEIN & REICH v. See 18 U.S.C. з 923(a).3 The Bureau is required to issue a license to any applicant that meets all the statutory qualifications and agrees to abide by the applicable laws. Or dealer that holds such a license is commonly referred to as a federal firearms licensee (an FFL). Bob's Gun Shop is an FFL dealer. The licensing authority was transferred to the Department of Justice. з 178 was recently redesignated as з 478. The FFL in the chain of distribution must report all or any portion of the information it is statutorily required to maintain for each firearm.
	OPINION/ORDER Doral are its principal brands) in both domestic and foreign commerce. (We refer to the practice as
	OPINION/ORDER PER CURIAM:1 The only significant issue in this appeal is whether the Louisiana 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. We conclude that it is unnecessary for us to resolve whether the test established by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Austin v. Chustz's exposure to the defendant's product was so significant before the effective date of the LPLA that the disease would have progressed independently after that date without repeated exposure. We also agree that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the fact that there was widespread consumer knowledge of the dangers of cigarette smoking before the effective date of the 1969 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
	OPINION/ORDER He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is a former Resident Research Assistant in the Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis in the Division of Cancer Etiology. Which is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health. Lehn's current interest in smoke is. He is currently serving time in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). He has sued 2 No. 01 1957 to challenge both certain IDOC practices that allegedly are denying him his right of access to the courts and IDOC policies that tolerate excessively high levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the state's prisons. Lehn's pro se complaint was dismissed by the district court because the judge believed his claims were either rendered moot after Lehn was transferred to a different prison facility or were unripe for adjudication. We agree with Lehn that his access claim is ripe for judicial consideration and that both the access tocourts and the ETS parts of his complaint state claims for which relief may be granted. Lehn was incarcerated at Big Muddy River for four years.
	OPINION/ORDER Kelley alleges that warden Hicks and assistant warden Cooper were deliberately indifferent to his future health by allowing him to be exposed to harmful levels of environmental tobacco smoke (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. I The underlying facts are simple and undisputed. The bond thus secures against revenue loss for what is. Although Customs regulations require an importer to update its continuous bond application within 30 days
	US V. COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS With him on the brief were David M. While detailed mastery of the facts and procedural history are not necessary to understand and resolve the legal issues presented in this appeal. We briefly set forth those details necessary to put the present dispute into context. The office buildings at issue were constructed in the early 1970s pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 602a. The United States filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the buildings were exempt from state taxation and an order vacating the sales of the buildings. A panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's declaration that the buildings were not subject to taxation because Illinois law exempted from local taxation property
	FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Some months after appellants filed their complaint asserting that they were being injured by environmental tobacco smoke at the prison. Our appellate standard is well known.
	OPINION/ORDER Shall reimburse the appropriate\ Trust Fund for any payment made by the Secretary under\ this subchapter with respect to an item or service if it\ is demonstrated that such primary plan has or had a\ responsibility to make payment with respect to such item\ or service. Or\ release (whether or not there is a determination or\ admission of liability) of payment for items or services\ included in a claim against the primary plan or the\ primary plan\'s insured. The United States may\ bring an action against any or all entities that are or\ were required or responsible (directly. S direct MSP reimbursement collection\ action against the major tobacco companies was dismissed in a\ related federal district court lawsuit. 100 Stat. 3153 (1986). \ ' var WPFootnote7 = '
	OPINION/ORDER Who is incarcerated in South Carolina. Buchanan styled his complaint as one brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act but also claimed that his eighth amendment rights have been violated. After determining that there were no viable federal claims and dismissing the Surgeon General as a defendant. The district court then determined that venue in the District of Columbia was improper and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. We held that the district court may not sua sponte dismiss a case as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. s 1915(d) 2 on the sole ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants or that venue is improper. The court reasoned that
	OPINION/ORDER Claiming that it was protected under FOIA exemptions for privacy and law enforcement purposes. While that petition was pending. Congress' obvious intention in adding the
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because Green's appeal was untimely filed. We Parties are accorded deny his motion to proceed under the PLRA. thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal. This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The district court's order was entered on March 5. 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 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Act prevents parties from taking such claims to federal court until they have been litigated before a state commission. We will 3 affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing Count III of Core's complaint without prejudice. How those duties are enforced. Such questions are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Which was enacted
	OPINION/ORDER DC 20005 Attorneys for Appellant This appeal was originally argued before the panel of Judges Smith. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the recusal of Judge Smith. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Act prevents parties from taking such claims to federal court until they have been litigated before a state commission. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing Count III of Core's complaint without prejudice. How those duties are enforced. Such questions are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Which was enacted
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude there is no reversible error. Boulware is the founder. Boulware was convicted on the tax counts and the conspiracy count. The government's theory was that during the period 19891997. He was convicted on all counts. II [1] Boulware first claims that the district court erred in excluding evidence that he contends would have shown that the funds he took from HIE were nontaxable returns of capital rather than income. An essential element of the crime of tax evasion is the existence of a tax deficiency. That distribution is normally not taxable. 26 U.S.C. зз 301. Boulware sought to show that the money he received from HIE constituted returns of the capital he had invested as the corporation was. We held that constructive distribution rules applicable in the civil arena could not be automatically applied to a criminal tax matter in the absence of some demonstration on the part of the defendant or corporation that distributions were intended to be a return of capital. Boulware argued that whether corporate funds could be characterized as a return of capital is a question of fact for the jury.
	OPINION/ORDER Both Lovell and Allen were speaking very loudly and Cobb expressed concern customers in the store might hear the argument. Cobb was upset by the lack of leadership shown by Lovell and Allen. Bearden was responsible for staffing approximately fifty employees at the ten stores. 2 1 On December 27. (3) Allen was subjected to a hostile work environment at both the Dumas and McGehee stores. Allen asked Goggans whether she was being fired. Three days before Allen's case was set to go to trial. Reasoning TSI was not prejudiced by having to present its case to a jury rather than to the bench. The district court also denied TSI's motion for judgment as a matter of law as a sanction for what TSI contended was Allen's repeated perjury. The district court found Allen's omissions and alleged perjury were not material and did not rise to the level of an abuse of the judicial process warranting a dismissal of the lawsuit. The sanction of dismissal of a case is
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Martin G. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry are non profit organizations whose members are hobby rocket enthusiasts. (ATFE is currently charged with administering the statute at issue. We will refer only to
	OPINION/ORDER End page heading. >
	FLORIDA SUGAR MARKETING AND TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, INC., V. U.S. With him on the brief were Terence P. With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief was Richard McManus. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on April 7. The tax is imposed on the shipper and liability attaches at the time of unloading. Those payments are the subject of this appeal.
	GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801) Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either
	RIVARD V. LINVILLE
	OPINION/ORDER No. 98 4075 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Corrigan asserts that this is a structural error warranting reversing and remanding for a new trial. The error is not harmless. The government must prove that Corrigan made a false statement to a governmental agency knowingly or willfully and that the false statement was material to a matter within the agency's jurisdiction. His assertion that the error is a structural defect is incorrect. 1 the Supreme Court has made it clear that harmless error analysis is required even when an element of an offense has been entirely removed from the jury's consideration. To determine whether the removal of an element from the jury's consideration is harmless error.
	GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801) Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either
	OPINION/ORDER The warden of the Pendleton Correctional Facility where Piggie is presently confined. The petitions were properly brought under 28 U.S.C. з 2254. That is supported by
	OPINION/ORDER The two drugs have different rates of action. Lupron is administered in liquid form by an intramuscular injection with a 22 gauge needle. While Zoladex is administered as a pellet injected under the skin with a larger. Which are less likely to occur with a Lupron injection. Such procedures are unnecessary with Lupron. Many patients who receive Lupron or Zoladex have a portion of their health care costs covered by Medicare Part B. Which are typically administered by doctors during office or hospital visits. The policy provides that doctors will be reimbursed for the cost of Lupron only at the reimbursement level of the lessexpensive Zoladex. Palmetto based this change in policy on its conclusion that
	OPINION/ORDER A. Rhoads was hired as a financial analyst in September 1987 by Standard Federal Savings Bank (
	OPINION/ORDER The defendants removed the action to the district court because the parties were of diverse citizenship and Mitchell prayed for damages in excess of $75. (3) he is entitled to actual and general damages of $10 million for his pain. Mitchell's action was referred to a United States magistrate judge. A prisoner's claims for emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries that are greater than de minimis. Arguing that з 1997e(e) did not apply because his suit was not a
	OPINION/ORDER That district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Is unable to do so. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. 18 U.S.C. Or receiving firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. A convicted felon can regain his firearms privileges if the jurisdiction in which he was convicted expunges his conviction. Rice was the first circuit court opinion to address whether the appropriations ban enables felons to seek the restoration of their firearms privileges in federal court despite ATF 's inability to review their applications.
	BRADBERRY V. DIRECTOR This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bradberry v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This petition for review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1893p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001777.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because BATF's issuance of the letter was limited to federal firearms licensees who had violated federal law in failing to comply with firearms trace requests. The system is designed to assist law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations. FFLs are required to provide information such as the purchaser's name. FFLs are also required to respond to BATF trace requests within 24 hours. BATF adopted new internal procedures because some FFLs were not adequately complying with its trace requests. Plaintiffs claimed that the letter was invalid because it had been issued by an official who lacked authority to do so. The regulations are prescribed either by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegates. FOPA was intended to reduce the regulatory burden on law abiding firearms owners without incapacitating 1 27 C.F.R. з 178.126(a) states. The current regulation is otherwise identical to the version prescribed in 1968. Two provisions of FOPA are relevant to this case. In relevant part: The Secretary may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0045p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the punitive damage award is constitutionally excessive. Charles Clark was fatally injured in an automobile accident while driving a 1992 Dodge Ram club cab pickup truck. Who was not wearing a seat belt. Was ejected from his vehicle and died a short time later. Claiming that its pickup truck was defectively and negligently designed. Clark were each 50% at fault and returned a verdict of $471. Chrysler argued that because there was no evidence of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961904.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Having concluded that COTC NC was the alter ego of COTC FL. Pierce's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Who was convicted of the murder in July 1992. Was a member of the unincorporated COTC. The self proclaimed purpose of the COTC was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D13495F1D2DDF1C88256A5C0075D68F/$file/9916524.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-5028.wpd.html">LAWMASTER V. WARD<BR></A><BR> Lawmaster's house while it was unoccupied. When there was no answer. Each version will be set out below. B. Facts according to the Agents Two affidavits were filed along with the motion for summary judgment: one from Agent Ward. One of which was an older dog that was unable to move and was lying in its own excrement. The gas service was temporarily disconnected to prevent a second source of ignition. Determined it was missing a complete firing circuit. After the bomb squad concluded the house was free of explosives. Agent Ward conducted a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0365n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The facts of the case are quite straightforward. Were adequately set forth by the district court in its opinion and order of July 25. ATF agents have inspected Pro Gun four times to ensure compliance with ATF procedures. ATF notified the Petitioner that his application was on hold during the pendency of assault charges then pending against him in state court in Cuyahoga Falls. Procaccio was later acquitted of those charges. A hearing was held at the ATF Columbus Field Division. As is his right under 18 U.S.C. з 923(f)(3). Petitioner was cited for incomplete Forms 4473 at each inspection. The inspectors found that the Petitioner's log book was incomplete on three occasions. That he was not filling out Forms 3310.4 as required on two occasions. That he was failing to provide required information to purchasers on one occasion. These forms and disclosures are required by ATF regulation. Procaccio can be said to have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956900.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This petition for review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0168n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were members of both the Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union and the Local 16T. The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that Philip Morris failed to offer them certain retirement benefits that were offered to other company employees. That the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Held that defendants were not entitled to the costs they incurred in procuring copies of deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs' first claim is a hybrid section 301/fair representation claim against Philip Morris and the Unions. Since the employee is alleging a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The suit against the union is one for breach of the union's duty of fair representation. Which is implied under the scheme of the National Labor Relations Act. Yet the two claims are inextricably interdependent. ... [employee plaintiffs] must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract but must also carry the burden of demonstrating a breach of duty by the Union. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/031175u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bittinger ran a routine check on Schofield's driver's license and discovered that the license was suspended. Driving with a suspended license is punishable by incarceration. As </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/060EE9E128C5F45188256E5A00707B63/$file/9916524.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/382B4C55F32929A4882572B20054621B/$file/0355780o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgments of the district court are VACATED and we REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the California Supreme Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-1483.htm">02-1483 -- RODRIGUEZ V. WHITING FARMS INC. -- 02/10/2004<BR></A><BR> Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption. Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991242.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Appellant Philip Saccacio is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1) from possessing. Because he was previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.1 Two years ago. Provided as follows: [N]one of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c)[.] 1 Saccacio was convicted of making a false statement to a federal agent. Which provides in relevant part: Any person whose application for relief from[federal firearms] disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. We conclude that the jurisdictional requirement of section 925(c) is not satisfied merely by the ATF's failure to process Saccacio's application. Because the ATF's failure to investigate or act upon Saccacio's application is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981286.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. Kelly's motion to supplement the record is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under зз 2(d) and (e) and not з 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F667B618BE8C9B788256B970056FF4E/$file/0055298.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 2702: Delete the entire text of footnote 1 and replace with: On appeal. 968 69 (9th Cir. 1941) (holding that з 4 of the FAA limits a court to ordering arbitration within the district in which the suit was filed) with Dupuy Busching Gen. Judges O'Scannlain and Paez have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED OPINION O'SCANNLAIN. While that application was pending. Sovak was not pleased with the way events had unfolded. Parties may agree to state law rules for arbitration even if such rules are inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-2210.wpd.html">AUDUBON SOC. V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERV.<BR></A><BR> Holding that they are not exempt from disclosure. Background The Forest Service is responsible in part for protection of fish and wildlife on national forest system lands. The standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo. Our review is therefore de novo. FOIA is to be broadly construed in favor of disclosure. Its exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Renews its argument that the owl maps are exempt from disclosure. Government information is exempted if: (1) the information falls within the language of the exemption that is. It relates to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues on appeal are whether (1) the district court erred in dismissing the Middle Tennessee Reception Center (MTRC) defendants. (3) Talal's allegations of retaliation are sufficient to state a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. I. BACKGROUND Talal is an inmate in the Turney Center Industrial Prison (TCIP) in Only. He is allergic to tobacco smoke and is housed in a non smoking unit. The MTRC defendants were dismissed pursuant to Talal's own action. The defendants have not filed a brief. 1 No. 03 6584 Talal v. Deliberate Indifference Talal's chief complaint is that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him. (b) the penal institutions have non smoking pods. Reflects a no smoking policy which is inconsistent with deliberate indifference. Mixed questions of law and fact are also reviewed de novo. Because the district court dismissed this case before the defendants were served. The facts are one sided and. Is purely legal н whether Talal's complaint states a violation of clearly established law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-1141b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The same is true here: Trans Union's target marketing lists interest only Trans Union and its target marketing customers. Trans Union's lists are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-6900.opa.html">BRADBERRY V. DIRECTOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bradberry v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This petition for review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604OR.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031725p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that the law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/053154U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs were not represented by counsel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-15358.opn.html">HERNDON V. EQUITABLE VARIABLE LIFE INS. CO. (3/28/2003, NO. 02-15358)<BR></A><BR> BIRCH and RONEY Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042220P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Larson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Larson was transferred to the Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC) where he remains incarcerated. The second complaint was converted to a grievance and denied. Larson's appeal was lost. Larson's appeal was then denied. Which was denied and converted to a grievance. The grievance was denied as was Larson's appeal. Larson testified that years ago he was diagnosed as suffering from Asperger's Disorder. 126 conduct violations for smoking were issued to prisoners. The evidence fails to show when Larson was housed with the various cell mates who smoked. The evidence indicates that the prohibition on smoking is not strongly enforced or is often circumvented. 2 2 However. There is no medical record documentation for Asperger's Disorder or documentation connecting it with ETS. Larson believes there is such a connection. Kempker also moved for summary judgment based on an Eleventh Amendment defense that there was no Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment abridgment of Larson's rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1588.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Nicholas Mesiti and Brett M. Of counsel was William A. On the brief were James M. With him on the brief was S. Of counsel was Goutam Patnaik. Deere alleged that Deere forage harvesters that had been manufactured solely for sale in Europe (the European version forage harvesters) were being imported into the United States. Deere argued that the European version forage harvesters were materially different from the forage harvesters manufactured and authorized for sale in the United States (the North American version forage harvesters). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1295(a)(6). We will not overturn the ITC's factual findings if they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Lanham Act. 04 1588 3 Many of the goods that are forbidden from importation under section 1337 are what are referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1961_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concerning the plaintiff's claim that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/971330P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (6) Potash 32 1 Both parties agree that the North American potash industry is an oligopoly.3 Prices in an oligopolistic market tend to be higher than those in purely competitive markets. Will fluctuate independently of supply and demand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-15358.opn.html">HERNDON V. EQUITABLE VARIABLE LIFE INS. CO. (3/28/2003, NO. 02-15358)<BR></A><BR> BIRCH and RONEY Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062930P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Volvo did not request an award of costs while the case was on appeal. The district court held it was without authority to award the costs of supersedeas bond premiums in the absence of a specific directive from the Eighth Circuit. The jury verdict was affirmed in its entirety. After the amended judgment was entered. Concluding it had no authority to award appellate costs under Rule 39 because the Eighth Circuit was silent on the matter of costs. Volvo filed a timely appeal. 3 II The district court's interpretation of Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is a question of law we review de novo. Rule 39(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth four separate categories of cases in which costs will be awarded. The four categories are: 1) dismissed appeals. Rule 39 provides costs are taxed against the appellant unless the parties agree otherwise. The rule provides costs are taxed against the appellant. The rule provides costs are taxed against the appellee. The rule provides </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-31026.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 1 Appellants argue that the application for taxation of costs should have been denied because Uniform Local Civil Rule 54.3 requires that the application be filed within 30 days of entry of a final judgment. Appellees' application was filed 31 days after the entry of judgment. We agree with the district court and find that the application was timely filed. Because the notice of entry of judgment was served by mail and facsimile. The application was filed on June 20. 31 days after judgment was entered. It was timely. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/042220P.pdf">N:\DOCS\MELISSA\04-2220 LARSON V. KEMPKER ET AL REVISED. OPN CIRC 4.6.05.WPD<BR></A><BR> Larson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Larson was transferred to the Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC) where he remains incarcerated. The second complaint was converted to a grievance and denied. Larson's appeal was lost. Larson's appeal was then denied. Which was denied and converted to a grievance. The grievance was denied as was Larson's appeal. Larson testified that years ago he was diagnosed as suffering from Asperger's Disorder. 126 conduct violations for smoking were issued to prisoners. The evidence fails to show when Larson was housed with the various cell mates who smoked. The evidence indicates that the prohibition on smoking is not strongly enforced or is often circumvented. 2 2 However. There is no medical record documentation for Asperger's Disorder or documentation connecting it with ETS. Larson believes there is such a connection. Kempker also moved for summary judgment based on an Eleventh Amendment defense that there was no Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment abridgment of Larson's rights. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4816DC72C20C412288256B65005927B6/$file/0055298.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While that application was pending. Sovak was not pleased with the way events had unfolded. Parties may agree to state law rules for arbitration even if such rules are inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3193.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was suspended from school for possessing a cigarette on school grounds. Timijane Martin was a seventh grader at the Shawano Community Middle School. Telling Marinack that she was holding the cigarette for 1 Also in the locker was a book entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061776P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as preempted by federal law. While their appeal was pending. Holding in a case also involving the marketing of light cigarettes that there was removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1442(a) because Philip Morris had established federal officer jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court on the ground that the attempted removal was untimely. I. This case is one of many across the country and within our circuit which challenge the marketing. (3) intentionally misrepresented that its light cigarettes were healthy alternatives to other cigarettes. Plaintiffs moved to remand because the amount sought by each individual plaintiff 2 was less than $75. Reynolds argued that the claims were preempted because it had complied with the requirements set by Congress in the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. While that appeal was pending. (2) there was a causal connection between its actions and the official authority. (4) the defendant is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05b0007n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. PNH objected to the settlement on the ground that the restrictive covenants were no longer property of the bankruptcy estate. The decision of the bankruptcy court is REVERSED. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue in this case is whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the trustee's settlement with PNH did not include the restrictive covenants from the Appellee's employment agreement with the debtor. An order is final if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1141b.html">TRANS UNION CORPORATION V. FTC<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961847.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Caption 2 the case number shown as No. 96 1896 is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/971786U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The BATF sent notice to Sturdy that his license was being revoked. The Court found that the evidence of Sturdy&s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2323.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Plaintiffs are three federally recognized Indian Tribes with reservations in sparsely populated areas of northern Wisconsin ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Patrick Burkett. On the brief were Peter D. Plaintiff Appellant Laura Wilson is the personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband. Wilson's estate services that were paid for by Medicare. brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital and two doctors. She contended that the government's claim against her husband's estate was improper and therefore constituted an illegal exaction. Wilson's claim1 arose under the Medicare statutes and because jurisdiction over such a claim is vested exclusively in federal district court. Some background will help the reader to understand the issue in this case. Medicare is a system of federally funded heath insurance for the aged. It is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All statutory references are to the 2000 version of the United States Code. 3 For convenience. Medicare paid for medical services without regard to whether they were also covered by an employer group health plan. Which were designed to make Medicare a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-6067.htm">03-6067 -- STAR FUEL MARTS V. SAM'S EAST INC. -- 03/19/2004<BR></A><BR> (2) Sam's sales to its members were not made with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor. The member price is five cents per gallon lower than the price for nonmembers. Ninety percent of the gas sold at the Memorial Store is to members. Sam's sells only unleaded and premium gasoline. <p> The district court found that Sam's gasoline operations were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2612.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PSC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3973.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that Rauen was not entitled to an accommodation because. Although she was disabled. She was able to obtain a college degree in 1977 through UST's tuition reimbursement program. Rauen is expected to spend 60% of her time managing capital projects at the Franklin Park facility. The remaining 20% ensuring that various systems and programs are performing as designed. Rauen was diagnosed with rectal cancer. She had to have several surgeries and undergo radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Rauen returned to work in January 1997 and was able to work without further leaves of No. 01 3973 3 absence or accommodations throughout that year. Rauen was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo various treatments that again left her unable to work. Was able to work full time. Her sickness and treatments have taken their toll. Because she is without a portion of her small intestine and must take in two liters of IV fluids daily. No further action was taken by either party pursuant to this initial accommodation request. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-2089.htm">02-2089 -- NISH V. RUMSFELD -- 11/14/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs are non profit agencies representing the blind and severely handicapped. Have preferred status in the provision of goods and services to the federal government. The mess hall contract was then awarded to NMCB. Plaintiffs contend that (1) the interpretation of the RS Act by the Department of Education (DOE) is not entitled to deference. (2) the RS Act does not apply here because the KAFB mess hall is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1869.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs Heartwood and Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/012198.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellants possessed and distributed a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031857p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Overview of Affected Parties The underlying matter in this appeal is an accounting malpractice action. The Trustee's principal allegation is that Price Waterhouse erroneously reported in its audit that accrued interest on Litigation Trust accounts belonged to the debtor rather than to the Litigation Trust. Underlying this claim was a suit between the Litigation Trust and the debtor. Price Waterhouse's erroneous reports were relied on by the bankruptcy court to the Litigation Trust's detriment. Is not a party to the malpractice action. The Trustee alleges the debtor's estate would still be affected by the malpractice suit because the Litigation Trust is effectively a continuation of the bankruptcy estate. Who were former creditors of the debtor's estate. Is not a continuation of the bankruptcy estate for jurisdictional purposes. Price Waterhouse contends the debtor is only tangentially affected by this malpractice action after it assigned away its interests in the litigation claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4BCD33ACCFC0D3D88256E5A00707BD5/$file/9799030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F37D428B8113024E8825733A004B6F53/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The panel reasoned that Pallas no longer controlled because it was inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority governing retroactivity principles. Because we conclude that Pallas is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1184p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19106 Attorney for Appellee * This opinion was prepared by the Honorable William D. Rice was so convicted. It is satisfied that the convict will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of such relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Its exercise of this discretion is subject to judicial review. That it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his statutory claim for judicial review of BATF's inability to complete the investigation that is a prerequisite to its action granting a convict's section 925(c) application. The court reasoned that judicial review was unavailable because BATF had not finally denied Rice's application. While we will affirm the district court's decision to dismiss Rice's constitutional claims on their merits. We will reverse its order dismissing his section 925(c) claim and remand the case to the district court so that it can exercise its statutory discretion to decide whether BATF's failure to grant Rice the relief he seeks would be a miscarriage of justice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/951779P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Acty contends she was denied effective assistance of We affirm. counsel due to her attorneys' conflicts of interest and their adoption of an unreasonable defense to the charges against her. Was selling drug paraphernalia. The two arranged Acty was a for Robert Vaughn (Vaughn). Vaughn acted as a consultant to Acty and Moore It was at this meeting that Scalise received during the Las Vegas meeting. a retainer for his services from Acty and Moore. Posters were formally indicted on various offenses related to the sale of drug paraphernalia.2 In the months During this lawyers. following the indictment. Scalise and Sandre continued to represent all three Acty was named in nine counts in the indictment. While Moore was named in six of the counts charged. 2 2 defendants until November 1990. counsel in Vaughn. Acty was convicted of presentation. With each attorney accepting primary responsibility for particular charges. in prison. each of the nine counts charged against her and was sentenced to 108 months Acty's conviction was ultimately affirmed in Posters 'N' Things. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1916_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was involved in an automobile accident while he was delivering boxes of tobacco to one of Lorillard's customers. Are disputed. Sperandeo also was treated by a neurologist. He was examined by several other neurological specialists. Sperandeo was covered by Lorillard's Group Disability Income Insurance Policy. Which is underwritten and administered by CNA. Disability or Disabled means that You [the Lorillard employee to whom the Certificate was issued] satisfy the Occupation Qualifier or the Earnings Qualifier as defined below. Injury or Sickness causes physical or mental impairment to such a degree of severity that You are: 1) continuously unable to perform the Material and Substantial Duties of Your Regular Occupation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/003410a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the caption of the slip opinion in the above case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5096.html">UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Howard N. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc E. 106 Stat. 2776 (codified as amended in various sections of 42 U.S.C.) ( EPACT ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>EPACT imposes special monetary assessments on domestic utility companies that have purchased government enriched uranium for the purpose of commercial electricity generation. 535 U.S. 1095 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>This case presents the question whether the assessments constitute unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>This issue was raised in passing in <u>Maine Yankee</u>. On the merits we hold that the EPACT special assessments are not direct taxes and do not therefore require apportionment in accordance with the Direct Tax Clauses of the Constitution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416419.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the second time this Court has considered the plaintiffs' challenge to this same statute. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E76AF88175CB3E0188256A6C00580FDC/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1791p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal in a strict product liability case brought by plaintiff George Pavlik. The product that was close at hand when Stephen collapsed. The butane was sold in 5.3 ounce cans. The gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is that the Zeus brand can is defective because this warning inadequately warns potential users like Stephen Pavlik of the extreme hazards of butane inhalation. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence in the record to prove that Stephen actually inhaled from the Zeus can on the night of his death. The court concluded that Stephen was already aware of the dangers of serious bodily injury associated with inhaling butane. That a more specific warning would not have affected his conduct. The court reasoned that the alleged inadequate warning was therefore not the proximate cause of Stephen's injury. The court based this latter conclusion primarily on the fact that Stephen had also purchased and used cans of Clipper brand butane and therefore was presumed to have had notice of Clipper's more detailed warning. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Profession or trade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/94-2314.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/001268o.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court list the above case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-12176.man.html">AUTO CARGO V. MIAMI DADE COUNTY (1/8/2001, NO. 99-12176)<BR></A><BR> The question presented is whether the required payment is prohibited by the Import Export Clause of the U.S. The purpose of the facility is to inspect and process. Self propelled vehicle for which export authorization was sought. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from city and county police departments. The Task Force devotes much of its work to reducing the flow of stolen vehicles through the Port.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case involves two airline pilots who have been charged with violating Florida criminal statutes prohibiting the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated. They assert that the Florida statutes at issue are preempted by federal law. Because we find the preemption claims in the instant case are not facially conclusive. We hold that the district court should have abstained. The pilots were instructed to taxi back to the gate. Whereupon they were interviewed by MiamiDade police officers. Approximately two hours later were taken to a MiamiDade police station where the officers administered breathalyser tests to both appellees. The breathalyser results were 0.084 and 0.081 breath alcohol level for Hughes and 0.091 and 0.090 breath alcohol level for Cloyd. Appellees were subsequently charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Appellees claimed that federal law preempted the Florida state statutes under which appellees were being prosecuted and therefore the district court should. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-3105a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Zener were on the brief for amici curiae Thomas S. Were on the brief as amici curiae in support of appellant. Dietz were on the brief for amicus curiae Abner J. Poe was on the brief for amici curiae Stanley M. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Weismann were on the brief for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington supporting affirmance. Barber were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of appellee and urging affirmance. Di Liberto were on the brief for amicus curiae Judicial Watch. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion. The question on appeal is whether the procedures under which the search was conducted were sufficiently protective of the legislative privilege created by the Speech or Debate Clause. The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive and accordingly violated the Clause. Depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-3097.htm">01-3097 -- CLARK V. STOVALL -- 04/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Citibank was described in the complaint as the escrow agent designated by the parties to the tobacco litigation Master Settlement Agreement to receive. With the further prevision that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215358.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: The issue on this appeal is whether a variable life insurance policy is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210333.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address two key issues: (1) the effect of the federal rule upon state antitrust law and (2) whether the exem ption extends beyond antitrust prosecutions into the realm of mere investigations. This holding is based upon the Fourth Amendment4 and state law rather than the antitrust exemption. Ct. at 2112 (stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061551P.pdf">N:\DOCS\SUSAN\06-1551 ON TARGET V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPN 12.19.WPD<BR></A><BR> Was aware of his general record keeping and firearm tracing responsibilities. Haley was interviewed by an ATF inspector during a four hour inspection of On Target. ATF again inspected On Target's premises and records but was unable to complete the inspection because On Target had failed to keep its firearm records current from November 2001 through April 2002. The above listed information was explained to me by ATF Inspector Bruce Absheer. I have received a copy of this document for my records. Someone whose background check was not completed at the time of the transaction. The district court deemed all facts set forth in the government's statement of undisputed material facts admitted because they were not specifically controverted by On Target. Arguing that the record was insufficient to establish On Target's noncompliance as a matter of law. It is undisputed that On Target violated these firearm record keeping regulations. The issue on appeal is whether the violations were willful. It need only establish that a licensee knew of its legal obligation and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0238n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 was found guilty by a jury on one count of making a false declaration before a grand jury and was sentenced to serve 15 months in prison and pay a fine of $10. Was indicted under his Lebanese birth nam e. His nam e was changed to Steve Safa by order of a federal district court. The record fails to show that a m otion to am end the indictm ent was ever filed on Safa's behalf. We have opted to use the defendant's legal nam e in the caption of this opinion. 1 * 06 1187 United States v. When Chief Deputy Sheriff Ronald Jones stopped a sport utility vehicle pulling a U Haul trailer that was drifting from one lane of traffic to the other on northbound I 71 in Oldham County. Investigation revealed that the vehicle was en route to Detroit. Admitted knowing there were cigarettes in the trailer. Safa was summoned before a federal grand jury looking into a possible conspiracy between El Harake and other individuals that involved cigarette trafficking and other federal crimes. While the defendant was under oath before the grand jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE94C00688637A7688256E5A00707D8C/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6128.htm">00-6128 -- EARLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 03/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0167p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/00-5409a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Katerberg were on the brief for amicus curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Circuit Judge: The Secretary of the Treasury must authorize the importation of any firearm that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-15299.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DELGADO (2/20/2003, NO. 01-15299)<BR></A><BR> A jury convicted Appellants Deepak Kumar and Miguel Delgado of engaging in an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5789209BB0ED58E88256C010055D6FC/$file/9936138.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. The petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. Ramirez was present. Groh told her they had a search warrant and were there </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1266C171B8838FD8825701200018908/$file/0335669.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. These mills are part of what is often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1407.html">BAXTER V. COBE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053847P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Business owners who violate the statute are subject to criminal prosecution. з 226.531.4. The material facts in these appeals are not in dispute. All appellants are located within one mile of a state highway. The appellants have all erected. Inc.1 was a nightclub classified as an adult cabaret. A declaration that section 226.531 was unconstitutional. Appellee is the named defendant in his official role as Missouri State Attorney General. 32 1 oriented business. The Steele Retail suit was assigned to the same district court judge that presided over the Passions Video suit. Steele Retail filed this appeal which was subsequently consolidated with Passions Video's earlier appeal. A party is entitled to summary judgment </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942314.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was imposed under the incorrect version of the Sentencing Guidelines and is the subject of the government's cross appeal. Is vacated. The case is remanded for resentencing. Commerce in firearms is regulated intensely by the federal government. Bailey was not permitted to stock weapons for future sale to police departments. Although Bailey's firearms business was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992279.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a violation of з 1 of the Sherman Act. That Maryland's liquor regulatory scheme is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 46(d) (1994). Was an infringement of American FireEagle's common law trademark rights. E One was infringing AFE's rights. AFE was infringing E One's rights. The issue was ultimately submitted to a jury. Arguing (1) that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Because we agree that certain of the district court's instructions to the jury were inadequate. E One is a fire and rescue truck manufacturer located in Ocala. The purchase price for American Eagle was $6.5 million. Though only $1.6 million was attributed to the company's tangible assets. The balance was attributed to good will. Although the trucks were built according to American Eagle blueprints and in keeping with American Eagle style. The Gainesville plant was closed shortly after June 1992. Those components (assuming they were serviceable) would be installed on a new or rebuilt chassis. By mid 1992 E One was no longer manufacturing any new fire trucks under the AMERICAN EAGLE brand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8747A5B972AEE1F882572D8000203FF/$file/0456353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: For nearly ninety years it has been clearly established that aliens who seek exemption from compulsory military service the draft based on alienage will be forever barred from becoming United States citizens. We are asked to decide whether this bar to citizenship applies to an alien who voluntarily enlisted in the United States Navy. Was honorably discharged. While ground combat operations during Operation Desert Storm were underway in Kuwait and Iraq. Gallarde claims to have endured pain on a daily basis and to have begun experiencing numbness in his left leg. He was advised that such a request would be denied. Was advised that he could seek a discharge on the ground that he was an alien. Gallarde's commanding officer exercised the discretion given him by applicable regulations and denied Gallarde's request because the Navy was experiencing a shortage of sailors in Gallarde's occupational specialty. Indicating that he was requesting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/93-8452.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC5BB5DB5573A7988256E5A00707B9A/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts giving rise to this case are not in dispute. Pagan is a resident of the Village of Glendale. He was given a blue 1970 Mercury Cougar as partial payment for his work on a case and hoped to sell it for its $3. A Village police officer noted the sign and informed Pagan that it was illegal pursuant to Village ordinance з 76.06 (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C3DCB6A0EAA839488256A820062C035/$file/9799030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0118n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is from an order remanding an action to the Ohio court from which it had been removed. The threshold issue is whether appellate jurisdiction exists. We are satisfied that the action was remanded because of a defect in removal. That appellate review of the remand order is therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. з 1447(d). The appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I Bulgartabac Holding Group is a Bulgarian holding company that controls a number of tobacco processing and cigarette manufacturing concerns in its home country. That are not parties to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0103p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case involves a forfeiture of the Defendant weapon pursuant to 26 U.S.C. з 5872(a) because the weapon was found to be a machinegun within the terms of the National Firearms Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-12176.man.html">AUTO CARGO V. MIAMI DADE COUNTY (1/8/2001, NO. 99-12176)<BR></A><BR> The question presented is whether the required payment is prohibited by the Import Export Clause of the U.S. The purpose of the facility is to inspect and process. Self propelled vehicle for which export authorization was sought. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from city and county police departments. The Task Force devotes much of its work to reducing the flow of stolen vehicles through the Port.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/88AB5EEB8875CF3888256B21007B0998/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971655.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Appellant's motions to compel discovery and to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/051393P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows.2 Baucom. Is an assistant manager at a convenience store owned by Holiday. The district manager allegedly told the store manager Baucom's age and health were a hindrance. Baucom alleges his hours again were reduced throughout 2003 to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031971.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because each of the several ALJ decisions over the course of this case were supported by substantial evidence and involved no legal errors. Who is seventy three. Most of his employment was spent inside the mines. Which was denied by a district director on June 26. You have disregarded 40 1/4 years in the mines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031125.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court should have entered a preliminary injunction because he satisfied the test governing preliminary injunctions with regard to his claims that the challenged portion of Jouett's 2002 2003 dress code is both unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. I A Students at Jouett and their parents are provided each year with a student/parent handbook that is updated every summer. Who at the time was a twelve year old student in the sixth grade at Jouett. Sitting at a table on the opposite side of the cafeteria with his back towards her.1 Pitt's attention was drawn to Newsom by his purple t shirt. Over 500 students were enrolled in the sixth. She had the immediate impression that the figures were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL. There were originally twenty two plaintiffs and twelve separate incidents at issue. Holding that this conduct raised an issue of fact as to whether the stop was based on race. Also whether the pat down search conducted by Officer Childs was reasonable under the circumstances. Is a suburb adjacent to Detroit. The 2000 census figures indicate that Eastpointe is 92.1 percent white and 4.7 percent African American. Detroit was found to be 12.3 percent white and 81.6 percent African American. Made famous by the popular movie 8 Mile divides the two cities and is commonly known as a racial dividing line. The plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to racial discrimination when they crossed Eight Mile Road into Eastpointe. Against the backdrop of each individual Fourteenth Amendment claim is reference to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-15299.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. DELGADO (2/20/2003, NO. 01-15299)<BR></A><BR> A jury convicted Appellants Deepak Kumar and Miguel Delgado of engaging in an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011491.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum opinion and order 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/99-3079.htm">99-3079 -- U.S. V. MEREDITH -- 06/11/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant George M. Attached to the government's petition was a declaration from Inman stating (1) he was investigating Meredith's tax liability and all information sought was critical to that investigation. (2) the requested materials were not in the possession of the IRS. The IRS actions were in retaliation for his newspaper editorials on corporate hog farming and tobacco litigation. <p> In two separate orders. The magistrate found there was no relationship between Meredith's earlier tax dispute and the administrative summons issued in the instant action. A pro se litigant who is not a licensed attorney with the appropriate federal district court has no power to issue subpoenas. The subpoenas completed by Meredith were invalid.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/94-2314.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-4138.htm">97-4138 -- U.S. V. RITH -- 01/19/1999<BR></A><BR> (2) all incriminating statements should have been suppressed because they were involuntary. He was in custody for purposes of <em>Miranda</em>. (3) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the admission of a certificate showing nonregistration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Background</strong> <p> Officer Mikkel Roe of the West Valley Police Department was dispatched to a residence in West Valley City. Officer Roe was informed en route that Sam Rith and his wife were concerned about firearms they had seen their son carry into their home. The address to which Officer Roe was dispatched was the residence of friends of the Riths. Fearful of guns and afraid that their son was involved in a gang. The Riths requested that Officer Roe check the home and ascertain if the guns were stolen. He gave the officers a house key so that no damage would be done to the house in the event they were not otherwise allowed entry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1379.html">JUICY WHIP V. ORANGE BANG<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Frank A. Circuit Judge.<p> <p> The district court in this case held a patent invalid for lack of utility on the ground that the patented invention was designed to deceive customers by imitating another product and thereby increasing sales of a particular good. Is the assignee of United States Patent No. 5. Which is entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1115.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The search did yield some records showing I and G may have purchased some cigarettes from an unknown source. Jurisdiction I and G contends that this court does not have jurisdiction because the district court never actually denied Lorillard a preliminary injunction. It generally does not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of the dissolution of a TRO. Whether the district court's comments are construed as an express denial of Lorillard's motion for preliminary injunctive relief or as having the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-8452.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-1337.htm">97-1337 -- GAGAN V. SOLANO -- 12/11/1997<BR></A><BR> We are mindful that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2156.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Willard & Redding was on brief for appellant. Gordon and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. Ericson represented that Frankina would have a job for life unless he committed a criminal act against the Bank. Frankina became aware of no employee who was terminated except for criminal conduct. 119 positions were eliminated. Determined that it was necessary to eliminate two of the seven positions in the Control Unit to eliminate functional redundancy. That Frankina was the least qualified employee in the Unit. Was least well suited to perform the work duties in the reconfigured organization. Four of the five Control Unit employees who were retained were younger than Frankina.1 On May 19. Demone told Frankina that job applications from laid off employees would be given preferential treatment in 1One retained employee was forty nine years old at the time of the reorganization. Two were forty one. One was thirty seven. One was thirty one. Frankina suggests that the forty nine year old was not similarly situated because he served in a managerial capacity. 4 the Bank's hiring process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001375P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I McCoy was convicted of drug conspiracy charges and incarcerated in various federal penal facilities from 1993 to April 16. He was bitten on the right leg by a spider and he sought treatment at the infirmary. McCoy's right leg was amputated in 1995. Again the treatment was unsuccessful. McCoy was transferred to several different medical facilities. He was not advised to quit smoking. Which is the only known effective treatment for Buerger's disease. Buerger's disease is an inflammation of the arteries. It occurs primarily in younger men (ages 2040) who are heavy smokers. There is no known cure. Abstinence from tobacco use is the only known method of arresting the disease. Which will necessitate removal of the limb. Asserting that his claim was time barred since he had filed his administrative claim more than two years after the amputation. That claim was also denied. His suit was dismissed. That dismissal is not the subject of this lawsuit. 3 2 States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C04/04-20193.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Jose Prisciliano Baez Leon (Baez) was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. A $100 special assessment that was ordered remitted on motion of the Government. Baez contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James L. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Melanie Watson. Of 3counsel was Alicia Daniels Lewis. I. BACKGROUND The Adair appellants are former and current (1) General Schedule employees under the Classification Act of 1979 and (2) Wage Supervisor or Wage Grade employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the FCI in Jesup. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1295(a)(3) to review the trial court's decision and hence what we consider to be the crux of this case. Namely whether ETS is covered by the statutes at issue as interpreted in the regulations implemented by the Office of Personnel Management ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20422A82BD77C24888256B7A0083C19D/$file/9936138.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ramirez was present. Groh told her they had a search warrant and were there </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/04/04-20193.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Jose Prisciliano Baez Leon (Baez) was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. A $100 special assessment that was ordered remitted on motion of the Government. Baez contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1950.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by causing his involuntary exposure to secondary cigarette smoke. Was spare. Statements appended to a subsequent motion for a temporary restraining order allege that in July 1990 Melendez was forced to leave a non smoking cellmate and move in with an inmate who smoked three packs of cigarettes a day. The in forma pauperis complaint was initially referred to a magistrate judge. Degree and nature of the offending exposure were lacking the complaint failed to state a cause of action. It was decided prior to the implementation of the PPD policy which was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/148766C86BD0764588256C440054A5C8/$file/9917383.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is REMANDED to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with Myers v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct01/04-20193.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM:* Jose Prisciliano Baez Leon (Baez) was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. He was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. A $100 special assessment that was ordered remitted on motion of the Government. Baez contends that the district court erred by characterizing his state felony conviction for simple possession of marijuana as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052028p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981943.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The underlying facts of this case are not complicated and largely not in dispute. Because we are reviewing disposition of this case on summary judgment. All of the plaintiffs are North Carolina farmers Marsh and Speer worked on Marsh's son's. Each of the plaintiffs subsequently discovered that the Gold Dollar fertilizer contained several ingredients it should not have. The plaintiffs were exposed to the picloram while handling the fertilizer itself. Marsh was diagnosed with lung cancer in October 1988. McLeod was diagnosed with cervical cancer in August 1986. Which they alleged were proximately caused by the picloram in the fertilizer. The court declined her motion on the basis that she had unduly delayed making the motion and that the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced if it was granted. GRACE & COMPANY 5 15(a) that was essentially identical to the one Mrs. The district court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to proximate causation and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981821.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In 1989 she was reassigned to the position of special accounts manager. Whitehead was transferred to an identical position in RJR's Annapolis Division. RJR closed its Annapolis Division and Whitehead was reassigned to RJR's Herndon. Whitehead requested but was denied permission to work out of the Burtonsville. Equipment needed for her position were all located in the Herndon. RJR did not have a formal application process for division manager positions. Instead developed a list of employees who were eligible for promotion. An entry level manager would be placed on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013811.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0112n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellants Nakeitha Jackson and Marlos Hines were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. DefendantAppellant Tonya Washington was convicted by a jury of knowingly disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon. The Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence upon which their convictions were based. Are affirmed. The sentences imposed are vacated and remanded to the district court in light of United States v. The decision of the district court denying Washington's motion for acquittal is reversed. Confidential Informant Bratcher purchased 1 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. With whom Sulloway Hollis & Soden was on brief. This is a failure to hire suit brought pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court below premised its order on a finding that plaintiff </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1774.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.P were on brief. Were on brief. Which was made without affording Beverly an opportunity to submit written briefs. Beverly argues that the regulation is unlawful. We conclude that there is such substantial evidence. The union negotiator indicated that the company would have to come up from its three percent figure if the parties were to reach agreement. The parties went on to discuss an unrelated dispute (whether certain employees were part of the bargaining unit) and tempers flared. While these negotiations were taking place. Included in its new system was a new policy requiring unit employees to pay a five dollar fee for lost timecards. A hearing was held before a Board ALJ. The Board ordered the company immediately to put into effect the annual four percent wage increases that were customary prior to January 1. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for NLRB action is provided by the National Labor Relations Act. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B9144E5C8EFBF07488256F1500754569/$file/0256648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants appellees are Albert Ruegg. Who are federal Bureau of Alcohol. Was released on parole on February 20. Was rearrested on February 3. While Jamerson was in custody. Jamerson's last known residence was on the list. The officers admit they had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Jamerson was involved in any crime. They were simply searching parolees as a way to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-3048a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. Our sister circuits that have addressed this question have rejected Barnes's reading of section 921(a)(33)(A). It is an issue of first impression for us. While section 921(a)(33)(A) is not a paradigm of precise draftsmanship. 1997 Barnes was charged in D.C. Is his son's mother. Barnes was sentenced to a prison term of 180 days. Execution of which was suspended on the condition of a one year period of probation. Believing that the car was stolen. The search revealed that he did not have a valid license. Barnes was charged with the unlawful and knowing receipt and posses sion of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. s 922(g)(9). Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1307a.html">NATL FUEL GAS SUPPLY V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5254a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-8979.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCALLISTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is the main issue presented in this appeal. We reject these claims also and affirm McAllister's conviction.<p> I.<p> <p> Eugene McAllister was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon. The government demonstrated that the gun was manufactured in California and was shipped to South Carolina in 1982. Testified that she had accompanied McAllister to the store and that it was she who had taken the gun home. Remained in possession of the gun until it was allegedly stolen within 7 10 days of purchase. This court will not address an issue not decided by the district court. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. <i>See Lattimore v. That the interstate commerce element is met by demonstrating a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2002/00-13064.opn.html">NAPIER V. PRESLICKA (12/10/2002, NO. 00-13064)<BR></A><BR> Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/01-1456a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-3021a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C16DD866DDD9E391882573210056E7E1/$file/0555976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Or should have known. 461 (5th Cir. 1998). [1] Appellant alleges that the non diverse parties were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1167.htm">00-1167 -- ECHO ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES INC. -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR> The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/991308U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissal is not appropriate unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would demonstrate entitlement to relief. We note that the dismissal was without prejudice. Which means that Morgan is free to bring a new suit against B & W. Although he is required to put B & W on notice of what it did or did not do to cause his alleged injuries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-1083a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974106.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Defendant appellant William Reece was an official at the Bureau of Alcohol. Reece was employed by the ATF as the Program Manager for the Air Operation Section. The low bidder on each form was always a business secretly controlled by Reece. Those checks were mailed to post office boxes that were set up by associates of Reece who were acting under his direction. The funds were eventually deposited into bank accounts of companies controlled by Reece. Reece was eventually named in a two count criminal information filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The district court notified the defendant that it was considering an upward departure from the sentencing guideline range. Section 2C1.7 is entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113482.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the advertising ban violates the First Amendment. The 2 plaintiffs' licenses and permits subsequently were renewed in 1999 and 2000. The statute also provides an affirmative defense where dissemination of obscene material is restricted to: (1) a faculty member or student </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/03-1321a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/054468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Spears was arrested. The resulting advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months' imprisonment. Sufficiency of the Evidence Spears first argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He asserts the witnesses' testimonies were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/052002P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Antonio Alberto Sebastian was convicted of illegal re entry to the United States. Sebastian is a citizen of Guatemala. He was convicted of child molestation in Georgia state court and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was released from prison and deported. He was deported a second time. He was arrested and charged with illegal re entry. A presentence investigation report ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Kuchta & Brinker were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. The complaint also claimed that Penobscot was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46101. I BACKGROUND Penobscot is a tenant leasing space at Knox County Regional Airport. It is a fixed base operator (FBO) at the airport. The ROD also found that Penobscot was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in this case. II Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for FAA action is provided by the Federal Aviation Act and. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing. We review the FAA's findings of fact to determine whether they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972032.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/992371U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ealey had filed only one ETS related grievanceнinvolving his placement with a smoking cellmate in September 1995нwhich was administratively exhausted. Because Ealey was promptly separated from his cellmate and thereafter was housed only with non smokers. Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/042604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other defendants then settled with Goss and are no longer parties to this lawsuit. Goss's claims against TKS were tried to a jury. (5) sufficient evidence does not support the jury's verdict that TKS dumped products onto the United States printing press market that were comparable to the products TKS sold in Japan. Because Goss's claims against TKS were pending at the time Congress repealed the 1916 Act. A typical large printing press system is over 100 feet long. Once a large printing press is installed. It oftentimes is referred to as an installed base. Is so large and expensive. This is often referred to as the installed base advantage. Price is the primary factor. The United States market for large printing press equipment is rather small. Because the market is so compact. Goss was the only domestic manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States. Goss noticed TKS was a major foreign competitor in the United States market. All of these sales were dumped. They were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7128a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C65B8D8A645F754188256EB5004E4AD7/$file/0256487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The controlling question in this case is whether Appellant the City of Los Angeles (the City) may revoke a building permit issued to Appellee Congregation Etz Chaim (the Congregation) authorizing renovations to a home owned by the Congregation and used as a place of worship. Because we agree with the district court that Congregation was entitled to rely on issuance of the building permit by the City. BACKGROUND There is a long history of litigation between the City and the Congregation. Most of the Congregation's claims were dismissed. After the Agreement was signed and the Congregation's action was dismissed. The City described the permit as having been issued </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971238.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/816F4480961CB44288256AA1005C8845/$file/0055358.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to ascertain the rights and responsibilities of several entities in relation to four separate contracts for the transportation of ten shipping containers from California to Japan. Held that Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0302n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-1137a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adkins were on brief. Were on brief. 2 Peter D. Were on brief for the intervenor. Assuming arguendo that Customs in fact exercised its managements right in implementing the revised At the time this suit was initiated. The Customs Service was a bureau within the Treasury Department. Whereupon it was renamed the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Customs was not obligated to bargain over the NTEU's ground rule proposal. Which are permissive subjects of bargaining. Are not unqualified. (2) procedures which management officials of the agency will observe in exercising any authority under this section. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983732P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury for ten weeks. A verdict was returned in favor of the boat builders for $44. Post trial motions were filed by both sides. Judgment was eventually entered for the boat builders in the amount of $133. They are located in various states. An additional party plaintiff is an Illinois buying cooperative composed of recreational boat manufacturers. 32 1 Brunswick's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim. Neither side contests the finding of the jury that the relevant market is the market for inboard and stern drive marine engines. Since the early 1980s there have been a number of manufacturers in the market. Stern drive engines are used primarily in recreational power boats known as runabouts. Which are typical water skiing boats. Which are larger and more expensive boats and usually have cabins. The market share requirements were reduced so that the maximum 3% discount could be earned by buying 70% from Brunswick. Another feature was added to the program in 1989 to offer long term discounts of an additional 1 or 2% to anyone who signed a market share agreement for two to three years.3 Boat builders also could receive a volume discount of up to 5% based on the quantity of engines purchased. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DDC77406016E53388256A2B005CE63B/$file/9817065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the substantive decisions of the district court on issues of federal law.1 We hold that under 29 U.S.C. з 2104(a)(1)(A) tip income is included within the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043117P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A test conducted by SJM showed a slightly higher risk of paravalvular leaks at the site where the valves were implanted. Numerous suits were then filed across the nation. The cases were later consolidated in Minnesota. The cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in Minnesota pursuant to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A class action was the superior method to adjudicate those claims. [found] that only significant variations in state law will be sufficient to require different subclasses. The district court found no two states' laws were substantially alike. Conditionally certifying the class only as to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0902n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tinsley was a customer at the Wal Mart Supercenter in Alcoa. Smith was unable to determine the origin of the liquid. No evidence suggested the origin of the liquid or the length of time it was present on the floor. The case was tried to a jury on May 11 and 12. Wal Mart had actual notice that the liquid was on the floor. Or Wal Mart had constructive notice that the liquid was on the floor. The court then concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive notice because Tinsley could not show that spills regularly occur at the Alcoa Wal Mart. If there is any material evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff. The negligence standard in Tennessee is not disputed. A business owner breaches the duty of care to customers when a dangerous condition exists that 1) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964126.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officers were summoned to the home of Genavy Jackson. Jackson asked the officers 2 if he could get his gun for protection while he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-1308.htm">01-1308 -- CASTOR V. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION -- 01/30/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Gerald D. We affirm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-3019.htm">99-3019 -- SAC AND FOX NATION OF MISSOURI V. PIERCE -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR> Is responsible for . Us is whether the State of Kansas may impose its . Within the State. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The facts underlying this case are not in dispute. The Tribes are the beneficial owners of trust lands within the State of Kansas. The stations are located along or near Kansas state . 79 3408(d)(1) (1999 Supp.)] exempts any fuel transactions where the fuel is exported </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1404a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Maureen E. With him on the brief were Samuel L. Were on the brief for respondent United States. Halama were on the brief for intervenors Verizon and Verizon Wireless in support of respondents. The Commission ruled that providers of broadband Internet access and voice over Internet protocol ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C855049FE707ED5E88256E0F005D00AB/$file/0115764.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> JOSEPH is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215596.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge: This is an appeal of a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. FACTS Appellant Maynard is a graduate of Meharry Medical College in Tennessee. These contracts are limited to one year and are typically renewed so long as the resident receives acceptable reviews.1 On April 9. Told Maynard that he would have to repeat his fourth year of residency because he received low scores on his ABSITE exam. Karl's decision to have him repeat his fourth year. Fabri explained that his problems were related to how others perceived Maynard's As part of the residency program. The faculty is required to evaluate residents in the program at least twice a year to assess residents' knowledge. Karl that he was going to file an appeal and again requested that Dr. Karl give him an explanation as to why he was required to repeat his fourth year of residency. To explain that he believed USF's actions were motivated by Maynard's race. Although the details are somewhat unclear. If his 3 Maynard was born in the Netherland Antilles. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Morris is a media company that publishes print and electronic newspapers. PGA is the sponsor of a series of professional golf tournaments throughout North America known as the PGA Tour. RTSS is an elaborate electronic relay scoring system that relies on state of the art computer technology and equipment as well as dozens of trained workers and volunteers. 2 RTSS works as follows. The scores are then collected by other volunteers. The scores of all participating golfers are then processed at the remote production truck and transmitted to PGA's website. Which are scores that are transmitted electronically nearly contemporaneously to their actual occurrence on the golf course. The compiled scores are also transmitted to an on site media center where members of the media are able to access the scores. The same information is also transmitted to various electronic leaderboards located throughout the golf course. The 3 only source of compiled golf scores for all tournament players is RTSS. The only physical location at which to obtain compiled golf scores is the media center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0734n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will AFFIRM the district court's order denying class certification. Rodney claims that he was harmed by Northwest's monopolistic practices in 1996. Another antitrust plaintiff who was represented by the same counsel. The court also held that Sax was not a proper member of the class. Both of whom are experts in the economics of the airline industry. We will not find an abuse of discretion without </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzalez Alvarado was convicted of two felonies for selling cocaine. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each charge (to run concurrently) and deported to El Salvador in 1995. Was not discovered until June 2005. Gonzalez Alvarado's initial guideline range was 46 to 57 months. The court then found his criminal history overrepresented because it occurred while he was a teenager. The court also emphasized that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/772EC902242035D388256D2C007AFEB1/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 4495. Replace the sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF8B84CF138501D78825705E0052F4B0/$file/0435389.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 5 U.S.C. з 552.1 Louis contends a system of records from which he sought information about himself was improperly exempted by the Department pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5085.html">APPLIED COMPANIES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7561F252BDCE0F88882571760057B5F0/$file/0556567o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1087_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Could not prevail because John was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1283p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Orson failed to present evidence sufficient to show that Miramax engaged in an antitrust conspiracy or that the licenses were unreasonable restraints of trade. We will affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Miramax on Orson's antitrust claims. We will. Was owned and operated by the Posel Corporation. Was owned and operated by the Raysid Corporation. Posel was the President of both corporations. There were six other theaters in Center City. Four theaters with a total of 20 screens were operated by United Artists and two theaters with two screens each were operated by American Multi Cinema. The license is exclusive. The film will not be licensed to other exhibitors in a prescribed area. Such licenses are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0558n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we conclude the Law Enforcement Officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The description of the premises to be searched was inadvertently duplicated. He presented those stapled documents to the magistrate judge and told her the object of the search was marijuana. Parrish then met the team of Calloway County law enforcement officers and explained to them that the object of the search was marijuana. No one was present at Sanders' residence when the execution of the search warrant was initiated. She was told that the officers were executing a search warrant and were looking for marijuana. Parrish was present for and had possession of the search warrant (with the attached affidavits) throughout the search. A copy of the warrant (with the attached affidavits) was left at the Sanders residence. Sanders was charged with various offenses as a result of the execution of the search warrant. His motion was denied. The Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the search warrant was invalid because of its generality. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/001711.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is not disputed. They will be able to pursue an interlocutory appeal in this Court. Will dismiss this interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Suit was filed by students and parents. Injunctive and declaratory relief was sought against members of the state's executive branch. App. at 48a. 1 That motion was unopposed. Was granted by the District Court. Because it was. Both petitions were denied. Which was granted. The Legislative Leaders' response to the motion was not received until after the District Court entered its order. That they do not waive any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032224.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Hodges claimed she was discharged by Phillip Morris without just cause in violation of the collective bargaining agreement and the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A cause of action will lie against Phillip Morris only if the Union breached its duty of fair representation. 656 (4th Cir. 2002). duty of fair A union is found to have breached its if it acted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13196.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (8/7/2000, NO. 99-13196)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that the employee was terminated in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected conduct under Title VII. Alleging that her termination was unlawful retaliation under Title VII.</P> <P> In October 1993. Were interviewed and many confirmed that he had engaged in sexually harassing conduct. At least three men were interviewed. Two of whom stated that they were aware of some objectionable conduct by Wimberly. He was fired.</P> <P> During the investigation. Women were asked about this rumored incident.</P> <P> Warren was the only employee who stated she observed this zipper incident.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661355AA530014388825727900824A50/$file/0370674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB3DA18418DD47BB8825722C005BFC4D/$file/0435087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Introduction This set of appeals arises from a single lawsuit that is still ongoing. Retaliatory action for which probable cause exists was not clearly established. Royster is entitled to summary judgment based on the second prong of our qualified immunity analysis. It is clear that probable cause existed for the search and seizure. Royster was engaged in a sting operation at a Get & Go convenience store. Is in the same building as the Get & Go. Royster was talking with the cashier. The juvenile </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0445n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Numerous Louisville businesses were robbed at gunpoint by Dumonde Wiley and Sidney Fletcher. Officer Singleton called for backup and a K 9 unit was dispatched. Who was hiding inside. He was arrested and taken to police headquarters. He was read his rights. Was questioned. Wiley was advised of his rights. The Defendants were indicted under the Hobbs Act. For thirteen robberies committed in the Louisville area during February and March 2001.1 Because firearms were used in the commission of the robberies. The Defendants Police suspected the Defendants were involved in a total of 31 robberies in the Louisville area between January and March 2001. Police Say Suspect is Motel Robber. Wiley & Fletcher Nos. 04 5601 & 04 5696 were also charged with separate counts of using a firearm in relation to crimes of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 924(c). The Defendants were tried together over their objections in February 2004. The required interstate nexus was not met to support a conviction for these offenses. Both Wiley and Fletcher were sentenced to 3. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1457.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is having the rest of it burn down a couple of days later in a second fire. Is if the fire department determined that the second fire was intentionally set (possibly by you) and called in federal authorities to investigate. Such a scenario would be particularly outrageous if the fire department did not actually believe that the second fire was intentionally set but was merely trying to draw attention away from the possibility that it had been negligent in putting out the first fire. This is exactly what happened to him. Our discussion of the facts of this case is relatively abbreviated. We note that McDonald contends that the district court's recitation of the facts is one sided and fails to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party. There simply is not enough space in the Federal Reporters or on Westlaw's hard drives to discuss explicitly every fact No. 03 1457 3 and counter fact which supports or affects each party's claim. Among those firefighters present were Ronald Colpaert. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031122.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0438n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the Union breached its duty of fair representation BACKGROUND Relations between Keebler and the Union are governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The agreement provided that if an employee were intoxicated while at work. Providing that an employee who reported to work with a blood alcohol level of .02 percent or greater was in violation of the policy and eligible for termination. The International Union told Richardson that Keebler was within its right to unilaterally implement the policy. Rebecca Summers was an employee of the Keebler Company and a member of the Union. She passed out and was taken to the hospital where tests revealed that she had a high blood alcohol level. Summers was suspended pending completion of a rehabilitation program. The last chance agreement specifically provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-13961.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. ORTIZ (1/14/2003, NO. 01-13961)<BR></A><BR> Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Answering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3478_045.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Divorce rates are disturbingly high. As far as dishing out discomfort is concerned. Connors was found guilty of smuggling Cuban cigars into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 545. Violating the TWEA.1 He was sentenced to a 37 month prison term. The government's star witness was Special Agent John Sheridan of the U.S. (Her motives are not entirely clear she says she was concerned because Connors was planning on taking their son with him and getting him in trouble. There also appears to have been an element of spite involved.). Connors was stopped at the Canadian border on his way back to the United States. A trunkload of Cuban cigars (46 boxes in 4 suitcases evidence suggests that they could be sold for something in the area of $350 per box) was seized along with Connors's passport (for which he soon obtained a replacement more on that later). Associates information she was able to obtain by renewing her relationship with Connors and spending weekends at his house. Cuban cigars have a definite cachet:2 Despite some controversy over the degree to which Cuba (where tobacco was first encountered by European explorers) has been able to maintain the quality of its cigars under communist rule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/983331.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is both ironic and unfortunate that arbitration. Should have devolved into the bitter impasse before us. For the following reasons we will affirm the District Court's order as herein modified. Abbadini was an operating room technician at Brownsville for twenty seven years. He was a member of Local 471 and served as its president. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/022833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is before us for the second time. Marvin is a family owned company that manufactures. The genesis of this lawsuit was Marvin's use. Marvin had used Penta products successfully for years until environmental concerns were raised about the active ingredient. The four month jury trial was bifurcated. The jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that such warranty formed part of the basis of the bargain between the parties and was incorporated into their agreement. The jury found the warranty was breached and awarded damages: $53.6 million for out of pocket costs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/001622.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are faced with an issue of first impression for this court. Whether the target of a grand jury investigation whose attorney has been subpoenaed to give testimony and provide documents to the grand jury that would ordinarily be protected by attorney client privilege is entitled to review the government's ex parte affidavit upon which the District Court relied in deciding that the crime fraud exception was applicable. We will refer to the dramatis personae as the client or the target (the target of the investigation) and the attorney (who is the witness under subpoena). We will also not identify the documents that were subpoenaed. As the legal issue before us is not dependent on the particular documents. We will assume arguendo that those documents ordinarily would be privileged. I. There is an ongoing extensive federal grand jury investigation into the client's activities in connection with potential violations of the Internal Revenue Code and 18 U.S.C. We were advised at the oral 2 argument that the grand jury investigation has been underway for two years and that numerous witnesses have testified and numerous documents have been produced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by з 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415152.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Brunskill is a Native American that practices the Tobacco Indian religion. It is against his religious belief to cut or allow another to cut or touch his hair except in the case of the loss of a loved one. Brunskill is required to cut his hair. He indicated that these materials were necessary for the practice of his religion. Are unconstitutional prior restraints on the exercise of his religion. He contends that non Indians </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415168.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His appeal presents us with the following question: When a search warrant is lost after its execution and is missing at a suppression hearing. The template's language was electronically copied from the affidavit.2 On December 19. Pratt was arrested and copies of the warrant and the inventory were left on the kitchen counter. Is being kept in or upon a certain premise located . . . [on] 2026 Autumn Ln. The residence is a single wide trailer located approximately .2 miles west of the intersection of Springhill Rd. and Autumn Lane. The residence is grey in color with burgundy trim. A white mail box is located at the end of the driveway with the numbers 2026 hand written on the sides. This is the residence to be searched. There is being kept on or in said premises certain person and evidence of a crime. Pratt was indicted for distributing a controlled substance. That no judge had issued a warrant and that the police only used the affidavit as authorization for the search.3 The Government countered that a warrant was indeed issued. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1450.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510755.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Firearms and Explosives that its federal firearms dealer license was being revoked due to violations of federal regulations. The license revocation hearing was converted to a license renewal hearing by the ATF. 2 1 application for renewal and affirmed its decision. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13196.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (8/7/2000, NO. 99-13196)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that the employee was terminated in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected conduct under Title VII. Alleging that her termination was unlawful retaliation under Title VII.</P> <P> In October 1993. Were interviewed and many confirmed that he had engaged in sexually harassing conduct. At least three men were interviewed. Two of whom stated that they were aware of some objectionable conduct by Wimberly. He was fired.</P> <P> During the investigation. Women were asked about this rumored incident.</P> <P> Warren was the only employee who stated she observed this zipper incident.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021694.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DOWCP Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Lilly was disabled by coal workers' pneumoconiosis and that the disease caused his death. The ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. He was most recently employed as a belt man at an Eastern mine near Bald Knob. Until he was laid off in 1992. That initial claim was denied. As was his motion for modification. Was diagnosed with lung cancer and. The upper lobe of his right lung was removed. Although this surgery was largely successful in removing his primary cancer. Lilly was not treated with radiation or chemotherapy. He was placed under hospice care to make his final months more bearable. Which was denied. This court reviews a BRB decision to determine whether it properly concluded that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. As we have explained. We are obliged to make an independent examination of the record. (4) pneumoconiosis is a contributing cause to his total respiratory disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021644.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ANGELILLI Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because our review of the record discloses that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We review decisions of the BRB to determine whether the BRB properly found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. We conduct an independent review of the record in deciding whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. To establish that he is entitled to black lung benefits in a case under Part 718. (4) pneumoconiosis is a contributing cause to his total respiratory disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951994P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Submitted to the ATF a petition for remission declaring his ownership of the seized gun and asking to have it returned to him. Brown advised his half brother to have the weapon repaired at the Sure Shot Gun Shop. Where it was eventually seized during an ATF raid. We will address the other claims because they are likely to appear during a retrial. We will not. Character Evidence under Rule 405(a) Monteleone maintains that the district court committed reversible error when it permitted the prosecutor to question Albert Lowe concerning his knowledge of allegedly perjurious statements that Monteleone made before a federal grand jury.1 The 1 The disputed exchange proceeded as follows: My question to you was. Have you heard that [Monteleone] had testified before a federal grand 3 Q. district court has broad discretion in determining the propriety of impeaching questions to character witnesses. We will not reverse unless there has been a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/001775.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Stating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2103.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woodworth & Evarts was on brief for Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company. Procter & Hoar were on brief for Pediatricians. Claiming that the coverage amount at the time of Flaherty's death was $200. Pediatricians also contends that it is entitled to attorney's fees. Final Judgment was entered September 20. Background The material historical facts are not in dispute. Of which he was president and 50% shareholder. The amount of this premium was $598.50 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021464.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF JOHN STEWART BRYAN. Circuit Judge: Four federal taxpayers a trust and three of its beneficiaries appeal a district court's decision that they were not entitled to tax deductions for fees paid to investment advisors. The taxpayers maintain that a trust's investment advice fees should be fully deductible under з 67(e) of the Internal Revenue Code because such fees are incurred as a result of the fact that the income producing property is held in trust. We agree with the Government that such investment advice fees are not fully deductible. This appeal involves the Trust Under the Will of John Stewart Bryan (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B31788BA8A27BBC88256E5A00707ADF/$file/9817065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the substantive decisions of the district court on issues of federal law.1 We hold that under 29 U.S.C. з 2104(a)(1)(A) tip income is included within the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033132U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claimed that her resignation was an episode of irrational behavior caused by an unspecified illness. Loss of seniority is entirely collateral to the Union's principal argument н that a Union member may rescind her resignation because she tendered it while unable to make a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/995555.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1998.1 Several actions were filed as a result of this disclosure. The PRIDES litigation was subsequently consolidated with the other pending Cendant actions. The District Court ruled that separate lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were to represent the interests of the PRIDES shareholders. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2902_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Daniel Groves was charged in a two count indictment under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is on its second trip to this court. Is suing the State Comptroller to obtain a declaration that certain Maryland regulations governing the wholesale pricing of liquor and wine violate the Sherman Act. When the case was before us the first time. Which is protected by the Twentyfirst Amendment. One of the questions that was to be decided on remand whether the regulations are effective in promoting temperance involves disputed factual issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. I. The Maryland liquor regulations under challenge by TFWS are explained in some detail in our first opinion. These prices are locked in for the following month. The second regulation is known as the volume discount ban or the antidiscrimination rule. Wholesalers cannot cut prices to large retailers because discounts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-3223.htm">98-3223 -- KOCH V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Is the second largest privately held corporation in the United States. KII was founded by Fred C. Those members of the Simmons family involved in the instant suit are cousins to the four Koch brothers. <p> In 1966 and 1967. He was never a KII employee and did not place a representative on the board until March of 1981. <p> In 1980. Frederick and the Simmons Family either to buy back some or all of their stock or to take KII public and have the now dissident shareholders sell their stock on the public market. The SPA contained two relevant warranties by KII: The first provided that all KII financial statements disclosed to the selling shareholders had fairly presented KII's financial condition and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Would have increased the Plaintiffs' valuation of KII stock at the time of the SPA. The Defendants named in the action were KII. Which alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that certain expenses were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-1103.htm">02-1103 -- WOODS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 04/16/2003<BR></A><BR> 1291 and conclude the district court was without jurisdiction to rule. Is a former police officer for the City and County of Denver. He was convicted by a jury of third degree assault. The victim was Woods' girlfriend at the time of the incident. A hearing officer concluded that Woods' conviction was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment because he was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016684.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the records and the district court's Accordingly. We deny Addy's motion for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0856p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-4036.htm">99-4036 -- ASTON V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR> The matter was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tobacco and Firearms ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014488.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ronald Marshall and John Anderson were also convicted of related charges. MARSHALL were also convicted of: (1) conspiracy to import drug paraphernalia. The Government also introduced physical evidence seized from drug dealers who were followed back to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/962209P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an interlocutory appeal. In violation of 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1) (1996). which he was a passenger during an investigatory stop. granted his motion on April 17. Is charged with being a felon in possession of a Owens moved in the The district court the government's district court to suppress all the evidence seized from the vehicle in Because we conclude that the investigatory stop did not violate Virgil Owens's Fourth Amendment I. Minnesota license plates. in 1992. on this was traveling in two vehicles. Both with The police learned that the minivan was a rental vehicle and was rented to a person who had been arrested on drug charges Police officers Michael Stueckrath and Mark Nagel were briefed information and were assigned to investigate this group's activities. He observed one of the occupants of the Cadillac hollowing out Blunts are often used to smoke marijuana. The hollowed out center is stuffed with marijuana and then lit. The excess tobacco from the cigar was thrown out of the window of the Cadillac and some of the tobacco landed on Officer Stueckrath's windshield. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3807_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cigarettes sold in Indiana were taxed at a mere 15.5 cents per pack. Especially if coupons could be used to keep a lid on operating expenses.1 But arbitrage in this context is called 1 In a two part episode of Seinfeld. It is illegal. I. HISTORY Harper was a manager at a corporate BP Amoco gas station located in Hammond. Harper was responsible for setting work schedules. Coupons accepted by the store were mailed weekly to a document processing service in Houston. The plan was foiled by a fanatical auto mechanic in possession of Jerry's car and JFK's golf clubs. The coupons he sold were even precut. Abdul began redeeming coupons which were supposed to be used to give discounts ($1.50 per pack and $7.50 per carton) for Jade and Eve cigarettes to purchase a different brand. Abdul said if 4 No. 05 3807 Harper was willing to take fakes. The coupons were printed on bond paper rather than supercalendared newspaper. Eventually Abdul was making at least two pickups a day and bought up to 20 cases per trip. Because Abdul's purchases were so large. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200712299.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties have raised numerous issues on appeal. I. BACKGROUND Appellant NASCAR is the sanctioning body of stock car racing. NASCAR races are broadcast in over 150 countries to approximately 75 million fans. NASCAR consists of three major national series as well as eight regional series and one local grassroots series.1 One of NASCAR's highest profile and Many of the facts summarized here are further detailed in the district court's order. Ga. 2007). 2 1 most visible racing series is known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1044a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the cause for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962952P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Weaver's suit was based upon his allegations that the defendants had violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by causing him to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Weaver's motion for a preliminary injunction was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. Both locally and nationally on the issue of second hand smoke are concerns that must be addressed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-3634.html">KIMM V. DEPT. OF THE TREASURY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/034230np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a labor organization that represents employees of Appellant. The CA superceded the CBA where the terms were inconsistent. Remaining CBA provisions were incorporated into the CA by reference. 2 The CA provides a severance bonus to employees permanently terminated as a result of the plant closure. Union filed a general grievance for employees and former employees who were on workers' compensation and disability. This arbitration provision was incorporated into the CA by reference. Quaker argues that the CBA was completely superceded by the CA and. That there is no surviving obligation to arbitrate under the CBA. We are not convinced by Quaker's first argument. Because there is an obvious typographical error in a provision of the CA that specifically limits arbitration in certain circumstances. Survived because they were explicitly incorporated into the CA by reference. 2000 Collective Bargaining Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012067.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was constructively discharged for exercising statutory rights. Earthgrains' employees have elected to be represented by the Bakery. Which were divided into three bargaining units. None of CooperSmith's employees were represented by a union. 11 of the 13 employees at Meridian were former CooperSmith employees. 8 of 9 employees at Laurel were former CooperSmith employees. 10 of 15 employees at Hattiesburg were former CooperSmith employees. Because the Columbus market was dominated by the CooperSmith brand. In ruling that the newly acquired CooperSmith facilities should have been included in preexisting Earthgrains bargaining units. He stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1699.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Cullen & Butters was on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellees. On the grounds that Appellants' claims are time barred under ERISA's six year statute of limitations. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are summarized in the light most favorable to Appellants. Was formed as a pension and profit sharing plan for the employees of the J. It is subject to ERISA. The Plan's accounts were handled by Hegenbart. If the recommendation was not accepted. At no time was Hegenbart given power of attorney or discretionary authority over the accounts. The Plan was charged commissions of about 3.5% for the sale of the CATS purchased in 1985. The first was purchased in June of 1985. (ii) there was not expected to be a public market for their investment. (iii) there were risks involved. Appellants were sent prospectuses which similarly disclosed risks involved when they purchased $40. The record shows that the portfolio review dated October 1988 lists as the market value what was actually the face amount of the interests in the limited partnerships. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/003403.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The gravamen of its complaint was that the managed health care organizations impaired the quality of health care provided by psychiatrists to their patients by refusing to authorize necessary psychiatric treatment. The principal issue on appeal is whether the Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society has properly pleaded associational and third party standing. P. 12(b)(6) was premature. We will vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1. SS 1001 1461.2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. The case was removed from state court under ERISA's civil enforcement provision. To discern which claims are preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-6234.man.html">CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234)<BR></A><BR> Remand for further proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2578.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There are qualifications. \ The court can consider. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEE5A054B33EB5B688256CFA005AC157/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MetroNet is able to meet the Centrex 21 line minimum and pass on Centrex volume discounts to MetroNet's customers. By requiring that each location receiving discounted Centrex features have at least 21 lines. The district court's grant of summary judgment was in error. Although it is indeed a close question. Call waiting and call hold (the features component).3 The access component of Centrex is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011166.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BUCKLEY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Provided no issues of material fact are in dispute. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact. In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. We conclude that there was no genuine issue of material fact created by the evidence of record. The district court correctly determined that this argument was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's holding in Withrow v. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006933.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error in the denial of relief on the з 1983 complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We address whether this generic advertising is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/476927F19950666988256B930005C208/$file/9916129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0058p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is located in Fort Thomas. Seventh and eighth grades and is part of the Fort Thomas Public School District. The Council has responsibility for setting school policy that is consistent with the school board's policies and that is designed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/445A43C3060EFEA788256A45005D38DB/$file/0035121.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024131np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The parties agree that the applicable statute of limitations is two years but disagree as to when the cause of action accrued. We deal not only with whether Backof's claim is timely. What is necessary remains indistinct. Seventy six handguns were legally registered to him as of early 1999. Fischer was arrested by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol. His home was searched pursuant to a search warrant. The items sent by Backof were seized. Their requests were denied by both the United States Attorney's Office in New Jersey and the Stafford 3 Police Department on the basis of Backof's reputation as a gun collector who complies strictly with federal and state firearm regulations. The County Prosecutor's Office was informed of Backof's reputation for compliance with the law. Corbley had personal knowledge only of the fact that Backof did not have a New Jersey Retail Firearms Dealer License. Backof was charged with violations of N.J.S.A. зз 2C:58 3 and 2C:39 10(a) for unlawfully acquiring handguns. The defendants purportedly communicated with Backof directly on two occasions despite knowing that he was represented by counsel who had instructed them not to do so. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011118.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We answer this question in the negative and thus will affirm the order of the district court. Joining the City are ASPIRA. Supp. 2d at 895 97 (recognizing that damages of organizational plaintiffs' members </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5MzItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4932-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cablevision had violated the uniform rate requirement of 47 U.S.C. з 543(d) 2 1 Broder's Notice of Appeal also describes various interlocutory orders that are merged into the final judgment. 2 Codifying Section 623(d) of the Communications Act of 1934. We conclude that both removal and dismissal were proper. At the time the complaint in this case was filed. The Basic Cable rate was $10.50 per month and the Family Cable rate was amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This rate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/034212p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We have before us two Emergency Petitions for a Writ of Mandamus. We have decided to direct the district court judge to rule on the withdrawn recusal motions. We will vacate the district court judge's order staying discovery on the recusal motions and direct that expedited discovery proceed without interruption. We will direct that all discovery and the district court judge's ruling on the recusal motions be completed no later than January 31. We will retain jurisdiction over any further proceedings subsequent to the district court judge's ruling. We emphasize at the outset of this opinion that we are not ruling on the merits of the disqualification relief sought by the Petitioners. Our decision to remand the recusal motions to the district court judge is prompted by our overarching concern that we do not have an adequately developed evidentiary record before us. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/98-3165.htm">98-3165 -- U.S. V. HINSHAW -- 01/12/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Appellant Douglas L. Hinshaw is a gun collector who possesses a total of sixty five firearms. He is also a business acquaintance of Garvin Mead. Hinshaw replied he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/98-1198.htm">98-1198 -- RICHARDSON V. ALBERTSON'S INC. -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Robert Richardson brought suit in the district court claiming that Albertson's Inc. Anderson</a> <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/014435p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant Donald Jones was sentenced to 130 months in prison. We will affirm the District Court's denial of Jones's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We will vacate the sentencing order for the District Court's failure to hold a competency hearing and remand to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The police report states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001721.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that the BRB's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ initially assigned to the case concluded that Smith was entitled to benefits. The BRB vacated the ALJ's conclusion that Smith was totally disabled and remanded the case to permit the ALJ to reweigh the medical evidence. The matter was assigned to a second ALJ. The second ALJ concluded that Smith was not disabled. The second ALJ again concluded that Smith was not disabled. The case was assigned to a third ALJ. This ALJ concluded that Smith was not disabled. It was assigned to an ALJ. In considering whether the evidence supported a finding that Smith was totally disabled. He determined that this evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate total disability. Nor was there any evidence that Smith suffered from cor pulmonale with right sided congestive heart failure. Waugh conducted a cardiac catherization on Smith and determined that his recurrent chest pain was not of cardiac origin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001632.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Therefore NISH was not entitled to negotiate the contract for mess hall services at Fort Lee. Was enacted in 1936 to enlarge economic opportunities of the blind. By which the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-8592.man.html">CLAY V. RIVERWOOD INT'L CORP. (10/14/1998, NO. 97-8592)<BR></A><BR> (2) were not options or offers to sell stock. One alternative is the possible sale or merger of Riverwood. Co. are contacting a selective set of potential buyers and working closely with Riverwood management to evaluate this alternative.</P> <P> An informal. (2) the SARs were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ensures that open source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws. Open source software is the Linux operating system. (Unixо is a trademark of The Open Group. The source code to many variants of AT&T's work is freely available.). Linux is one of many modern derivatives of Unix which is not itself under the GPL. Is entitled to charge for its software. Is maintained by a large open source community. People are free to charge for the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work. Thus are the most expensive part of using Linux. Daniel Wallace would like to compete with Linux either by offering a derivative work or by writing an operating system from scratch but maintains that this is impossible as long as Linux and its derivatives are available for free. Novell have conspired among themselves and with others (including the No. 06 2454 3 Free Software Foundation) to eliminate competition in the operating system market by making Linux available at an unbeatable price. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001439.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before the Court are whether Hooven Lewis has a disability under the Rehabilitation Act or was regarded by her employer as having such a disability. Whether the Merit Systems Protection Board was arbitrary and capricious or abused its discretion in finding that Hooven Lewis' employer did not terminate her for informing upon her superior. The Court holds that Hooven Lewis does not have a disability under the Rehabilitation Act because she does not have a condition that substantially limits her in any major life activity. Hooven Lewis received training as a medical laboratory specialist1 and was ultimately assigned to the Walter Reed Army Hospital Institute of Research ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Also dismissed were alleged statutory violations for omitting information required by 22 1 rel. An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0272p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Marku was the Chief Finance Officer (also called the top economist) of the governmentowned National Government Tobacco Company of Albania (NGTCA) from 1975 until 1994. Sitting by designation. * The appen dix annexed to Pe titioner's brief in this case will be designated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5101.html">AMERICAN PELAGIC FISHING COMPANY, L.P. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Eileen Penner</u>. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. That American Pelagic did not suffer the taking of a property interest that is legally cognizable under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>We therefore reverse the decision with regard to liability. 1983).</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent3>The pertinent facts are not in dispute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Throughout the 1990s. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> reported that mackerel and herring stocks in the Atlantic Ocean were at record highs and were substantially underfished.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span><u>Am. Explaining that stocks were extremely high and harvesting low.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span><u><span style='mso bidi font size:10.0pt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Both the Narragansetts and the State of Rhode Island filed suits disputing the issue of whether the Tribe's operation of a smoke shop and sale of cigarettes on the Tribe's settlement lands are exempt from the application and enforcement of Rhode Island's cigarette tax laws. The State initially filed its complaint in Rhode Island state court and the Narragansetts removed the case to federal district court in an attempt to have it decided together with the Tribe's complaint. Which was brought in federal district court. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the state case and remanded it to the state court. We are asked whether the district court could exercize jurisdiction over the State's complaint. 6 7 (1st Cir. 1997).</P> <P> The Narragansett Indian Tribe is a federally recognized </P> <P>Indian tribe located in the State of Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4MzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1830-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the denial of the motion on the free speech claim because under plaintiffs' facts it was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law for defendants to believe that the demonstration presented a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032637np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 at 12:00 pm a radio dispatch was sent to local officers in Trenton. A man with a gun was in a grey Honda Accord on Union Street. The officers were subsequently informed that the license plate of the grey Honda Accord was MOY37I. Because it was school lunch recess time. The dispatch was given the highest priority. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0182p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/03-6064.htm">03-6064 -- TAGGART V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 09/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Taggart was an inmate in DOC's custody. His complaint alleged that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs as a recovering cancer survivor and violated his due process. Taggart was discharged from DOC custody in August 2002. Taggart's claims were either moot in light of his discharge. We accept as true </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0166p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This was done pursuant to з 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. Le avitt is automatically substituted for Christine Tod d W hitman. PM10 nonattainment areas are further classified as moderate or serious. NSR is a permit program for major new and modified sources of pollutant. The program requires new or modified sources of pollutant to obtain a permit that requires certain pollution controls and other measures to ensure that the new or modified source will not exacerbate the pollution problem in the area. Then the state is subject to sanctions. (iii) the EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and other required reductions. Which demonstrates that the area will maintain the NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. The Redesignation of Cleveland Cleveland was designated as a moderate nonattainment area in 1990. Which was supplemented twice. The SIP was fully approved. Stating that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this case is an application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Soon after the action was filed. Arguing (1) that plaintiffs lack statutory standing under RICO to pursue this case because any injury they suffered was derivative of an injury The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell. Because we reject the application of Garmon preemption in this context and because we cannot say at this early stage in the case that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient as a matter of law to establish statutory standing. Tyson's headquarters are in Springdale. One of Tyson's plants is located in Shelbyville. Soon after the indictment was filed. Tabetha Eddings and Doris Jewell former hourly workers at Tyson's Shelbyville facility who were legally employed by Tyson filed this civil RICO action against Tyson based on some of the same allegedly illegal activities underlying the criminal indictment. The amended complaint alleges that Tyson engaged in a scheme to depress the wages paid to its hourly employees by knowingly hiring undocumented illegal immigrants who were willing to work for wages well below those paid in labor markets composed of only United States citizens. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5307a.html">SENDRA CORP V. MAGAW JOHN W.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1301.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hawkes & Goldings were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Shay Jr. was tried first. The thrust of the government's case was that Trenkler had built the Roslindale bomb for Shay Jr. to use against his father. Finding that it was relevant on the issues of identity. Shea was involved in a dispute with the owners of the Capeway Fish Market and she wanted the bomb to use as a means to intimidate them. The device was later attached to the undercarriage of a truck belonging to the Capeway Fish Market 3. The charges were dismissed. 4 4 and detonated in the middle of the night. Was unable to find all of the items. Testimony from government investigators and Shay Sr. established that the Roslindale bomb was a remote control. A large donut shaped magnet and several smaller round magnets attached to the box were used to secure the device to the underside of Shay Sr.'s automobile. The bomb was originally attached to the undercarriage of Shay 6 6 Sr.'s automobile directly beneath the driver's seat. It probably would have killed or at least seriously injured any individual sitting in the driver's seat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052657np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. A plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint once. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-8979.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MCALLISTER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is the main issue presented in this appeal. We reject these claims also and affirm McAllister's conviction.<p> I.<p> <p> Eugene McAllister was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a felon. The government demonstrated that the gun was manufactured in California and was shipped to South Carolina in 1982. Testified that she had accompanied McAllister to the store and that it was she who had taken the gun home. Remained in possession of the gun until it was allegedly stolen within 7 10 days of purchase. This court will not address an issue not decided by the district court. Is at the discretion of the appellate court. <i>See Lattimore v. That the interstate commerce element is met by demonstrating a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-2098.htm">02-2098 -- U.S. V. BENAVIDEZ -- 10/30/2003<BR></A><BR> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQyMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4206-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is the latest installment in a series of litigations over the Nassau County Correctional Center's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/034212p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Petitions asserted that disqualification was also wa r r a n te d u nder 28 U.S.C. з 455(b)(1) as a result of ex parte communications among Judge Wolin and his advisors. Our decision was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1835.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. (2) by failing to interview a witness who allegedly would have supported such a defense. Tobacco and Firearms gave to Miller a picture of a device he wished to have manufactured. They could not figure out what the drawing was supposed to represent. It became clear to appellant that the device was a silencer. He was arrested in January 1989. Appellant stated that the reason he had chosen not to proceed to trial was that he did not want to spend a substantial amount of time in jail. Trial counsel told appellant that it was too late to change the guilty plea. Portions of the transcript of this hearing are appended to the 2255 motion. Counsel was concerned that if appellant were convicted on four separate sales of the silencers he might receive a sentence greater than the one he would receive if he pleaded guilty to just one sale. Another factor in this advice was that appellant's admission of the offense and his cooperation with the government probably would lower the offense level under the Guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5039.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section (q)(8) of the statute in turn commands that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?yr=05&num=&Submit=List+Case(s)&dtype=Opinion&scrid=Select+a+Case&ln_beg=yes&slname=&fn_beg=yes&sfname=">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Other selected case materials</FONT></TD> </TR></TABLE> <H2>Case Listing</H2> If the case you are looking for is not in the system. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2837.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were indicted on numerous drugrelated offenses. Were tried before a jury and found guilty. The eighth was granted a motion to sever his trial. The ninth is a fugitive. The tenth was dismissed from the indictment because he suffered severe brain damage in a drug related beating. We reject all their arguments as the evidence of defendants' guilt was more than sufficient and the alleged trial errors were either nonexistent or clearly harmless. Colon was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison for murder. A posi 1 Although Gustavo Colon is referred to as both Gustavo and Gino throughout the record. We will use his legal surname. A recording is played which states that all conversations. Approximately seventy of Colon's telephone calls were played at trial. Colon contested the fact that he was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1693.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5ODFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7981_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 963.01 in damages and prejudgment interest for goods carried by appellant that were stolen prior to delivery. Who was a member of the panel. 963.01 in damages and prejudgment interest to plaintiff Security Insurance Company of Hartford ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Discussion This is not our first introduction to Punchard's legal complaints. As we have done before. We note that Punchard's propositions in both appeals are difficult to understand and are not supported by cogent arguments or legal authority. We will not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2167A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The City of Chicago ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR> The court declined to address whether there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2425.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1598.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Special Agent John Lennon and Detectives Francisco Col n and Robert Drohan of the Providence Police Department's Special Investigations Bureau were on their way to interview a witness when Detective Drohan observed a silver Toyota occupied by two males in the parking lot of a McDonald's restaurant on Broad Street in Providence. Because neither man appeared to have any food nor appeared to be ordering any. Because the area was a known drug trafficking location. Detective Drohan suspected the two men were loitering for the purpose of making a narcotics purchase. Who were later identified as Raymond Ladou. McMullen and Garc a were both looking down and appeared to be examining something in their laps. Garc a and McMullen were apprehended after they abandoned the vehicle. That McMullen told him </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1573.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is required for all gun transactions with licensed gun dealers. These guns were ten .25 caliber pistols. The PSI was prepared.2 The base offense level (BOL) was established at level 14. Because the defendant was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2DE4068E4963D57E88256E5A00707C30/$file/0055358.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to ascertain the rights and responsibilities of several entities in relation to four separate contracts for the transportation of ten shipping containers from California to Japan. Held that Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7061.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> We have combined these separate appeals solely for the purpose of disposition. Shelby Sells and his son Anthony Sells were engaged in a large scale methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution operation on Shelby's property in rural Sequoyah County. Both were convicted of drug and firearm offenses relating to their participation in this enterprise. That this error was not harmless. We conclude the district court's determination of the drug amount attributable to Shelby was insufficiently particularized. Located near the rear of the property and more than two hundred yards behind Shelby's (1) Because three members of the Sells family are discussed in this opinion Anthony. Was occupied by Anthony. Was occupied by Shelby's grandson Christopher Sells. Based on information obtained from confidential informants that Anthony was engaged in manufacturing methamphetamine. Agents found substantial evidence that Anthony was manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. Agents were able to recover a sample of the liquid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the energy related components of HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements are excluded by statute from income under the Food Stamp Act. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The defendant appellees are the Secretary of USDA (Secretary) and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Plaintiffs are a class of tenants receiving food stamps. In privately owned FmHA assisted housing.1 1The class includes [a]ll the persons in the State of Maine who will receive or who have received FmHA and/or HUD utility [reimbursements] anytime since March 1. 1990 and whose food stamp benefits were or will be 2 Plaintiffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3506.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of one count of willfully dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 18 U.S.C. зз 922(a)(1)(A) and 924(a)(1)(D). He was sentenced to a two year prison term. He now appeals his conviction and submits that expert testimony was admitted improperly. He further contends that the jury could not have convicted him on the sixth count after having acquitted him on five related counts. Conn was operating an unlicensed firearms dealership. Conn that he was a felon. They negotiated but Detective Shoemaker's asking price was too high. Who was then 19 years old. Excerpts of these tapes were played for the jury at trial. Once the undercover operation was completed. Most of which were in one room (called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/00-1437.htm">00-1437 -- WIRSCHING V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 02/19/2004<BR></A><BR> 2003 was incarcerated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) on a conviction for sexual assault of a minor. Wirsching's refusal to admit that he had committed a sexual assault were not so severe as to likely compel him to be a witness against himself. BACKGROUND</u></center> <p> The relevant facts are not in dispute. One of the requirements for participation is that the inmate admit that he has engaged in the conduct that led to his classification as a sex offender.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/02-10151.opn.html">PHARM. RESEARCH V. MEADOWS (9/6/2002, NO. 02-10151)<BR></A><BR> If a drug is not on the preferred list. The pharmacist informs the doctor of the availability of other drugs (usually on the preferred drug list) that allegedly have comparable therapeutic value but are less expensive. Approval of the prescribing doctor's first choice drug is guaranteed in 100 percent of all cases. Approximately 55 percent of all these calls have resulted in a change of the prescription to a drug on the preferred drug list. It is not favored by the pharmaceutical manufacturers that brought this lawsuit.</P> <P> The prior authorization program gives the state of Florida considerable leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. Companies that have agreed to pay a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court explicitly noted that the source of such evidence was from a related trial over which it had presided. That decision was quite correctly affirmed on direct appeal. A district court is indeed permitted to rely on testimony presented at a related proceeding. So long as there are sufficient indicia of reliability. A panel of this court remanded the defendant's case for resentencing because it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3784.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Claiming that another inmate had loaned him the television and that he was unaware of its contents. According to Pannell the television's exterior was sealed when he received it and remained that way until the October 14 search. Asserting that the conduct board was biased against him and that Indiana violated his due process rights by refusing his request for documents and his request to call witnesses. That his requests were denied. Concluding that Pannell had failed to demonstrate bias and that there was no evi No. 01 3784 3 dence in the record that he timely requested documents and witnesses. On appeal Pannell iterates that the conduct board was biased and that prison authorities violated his due process rights by stymying his efforts to obtain documents and call witnesses. Under that provision federal courts may grant habeas corpus relief only if a state court's adjudication on the merits resulted in a decision that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 2. Footnote 8: delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6136.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an inmate in Oklahoma state prison. Broadus was transferred to another prison. Broadus's 1983 claim was referred to a magistrate judge. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) The officials are: Warden Mickey Liles. A copy of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation was sent to Mr. Broadus under just his Muslim name but was returned as undeliverable since the GPCF would not accept mail in that name.(2) The copy of the Report and Recommendation was then sent to Mr. He received a response from the district court clerk's office rejecting his certificate of mailing since it was not included with his original motion. Broadus's motion for an extension of time because he had failed to include both an extra copy of his motion and a certificate of mailing.(3) A copy of Order #1 was mailed to Mr. (2) Two earlier orders had also been sent to Mr. Broadus under his Muslim name and returned as undeliverable. (3) This was the second time the court had stricken one of Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lvarez</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. 13. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974284P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National Parcel Service is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1487.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Thomas was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Told them that he was the one who pointed a gun at her. Thomas ran from the building and was chased by the officers on foot and by squad car. He was caught a few blocks away. While Thomas was being handcuffed. No gun was found. As Thomas was being brought back to the apartment building. Thomas was charged in Illinois state court with possession of cocaine. Was sentenced to three years' incarceration. Thomas was arrested on a federal complaint charging him with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Thomas was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment and now appeals. ANALYSIS Thomas's principal challenge on appeal is that two pieces of evidence. Were erroneously admitted at trial. Thomas moved to have a photograph taken of one of his tattoos ruled inadmissible. The tattoo was of two revolvers crossed. The district court ruled that the photograph was admissible. Finding that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1681.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacFadyen was on brief. Inc. were on brief. Was on brief. Asks us to determine whether summary judgment foreclosing his claim to certain real property was duly entered in the underlying civil forfeiture action. The second appeal is prosecuted by Peter's siblings. Who were successful claimants in the same forfeiture proceeding. Peter Beane was arrested and charged. Finding probable cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7) (1982 & Supp. 1988). Which is used . . . in any manner or part. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7) (1982 & Supp. 1988). 4 interest. Even before this judgment was obtained. Summary judgment's role is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4311.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are that Joseph Fleischli was convicted of being a felon in possession 2 No. 03 4311 of firearms. The firearms Fleischli illegally possessed were seized. Forty four days after the firearms were seized. Alleging they were used or involved in a knowing violation of 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1). Asserting that the government's judicial forfeiture complaint was not filed within 120 days of the seizure of the guns and therefore was not within the time limitations of the statute governing forfeitures. Both sides stipulated that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042130np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the payments were inadequate. We will affirm in part and reverse in part.1 Eighty Four and the UMWA agreed that the sixty day advance notice required by з 2102 of the WARN Act was not given and that each of the affected employees was entitled to damages under з 2104 of the WARN Act. We have final order jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. 2 1 of the damages due. Including: (1) whether the back pay due and owing under з 2104 was due for the calendar days within the violation period or only the actual work days. (2) what items of remuneration were encompassed by the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/05/96-6251.htm">96-6251 -- U.S. V. JASSO-TREVINO -- 05/06/1997<BR></A><BR> Thinking the driver was either intoxicated or sleepy. Jasso Trevino was intoxicated. Trooper Hill assumed he was sleepy rather than intoxicated and decided to issue a warning for improper lane usage rather than a citation. Jasso Amaro to accompany him back to the patrol car so he could explain why he was issuing a warning and inquire as to how long Mr. Jasso Amaro said he and his son were returning home to Mexico after visiting relatives in Wisconsin for the past ten days. Jasso Amaro was unable to state the addresses of the relatives they had been visiting or the city in Wisconsin where they had stayed. <p> Trooper Hill asked Mr. Jasso Amaro if they were transporting any firearms. Who had opened the passenger door but was still standing. Tell him he was free to go. Jasso Trevino whether he was transporting any illegal firearms. To have background checks run on the detainees. Was never to reenter the country and should be arrested for illegal reentry. Those issues are now before us. <p> <strong>II. Jasso Trevino's assertions on appeal are threefold. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M853no.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
	OPINION/ORDER This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Provided a copy of a bulletin in which
	NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811) Circuit Judge:
	UNITED STATES V. SNOW Ronald Lloyd Snow was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and theft of a firearm from a federally licensed firearm dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(u). He was sentenced to sixty six months incarceration. Snow then stated he wanted to look at some knives that were in a cabinet next to the display case containing the guns. Snow was leaning over the cabinet with his hand behind the counter. Asked if there was anything else he wanted to see. At this point she noticed the case was in disarray. Snow had just been examining and two magazine clips were missing. Snow was no longer in the store. It was a jean a denim type material and then it had the brown corduroy cutoffs. The police noted she also stated the suspect was a white male carrying a black satchel. Snow was then taken to the Torrington Police Department. Fingerprint cards were used to determine that Mr. (2) whether the testimony of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent that the gun manufacturer told him the firearm model in question was imported denied the defendant his right of confrontation and was hearsay.
	PATENT OFF PROF ASSN V. FLRA
	NAPIER V. PRESLICKA (12/10/2002, NO. 00-13064) Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed.
	OPINION/ORDER Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. Gould were on brief for appellee. The
	OPINION/ORDER The plaintiff complains that the defendant is passing off his (inferior) product as the plaintiff's. Here we have the converse case of
	OPINION/ORDER We will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1915(e)(2)(B). Filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that his constitutional rights were violated due to his exposure to second hand smoke at the prison. Defendant Nash filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity and that Goode's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Noting that the record showed that Goode had a history of infirmary visits for breathing and sinus problems that potentially could have been caused by second hand smoke. The Court noted that
	CLAY V. RIVERWOOD INT'L CORP. (10/14/1998, NO. 97-8592) (2) were not options or offers to sell stock. One alternative is the possible sale or merger of Riverwood. Co. are contacting a selective set of potential buyers and working closely with Riverwood management to evaluate this alternative. An informal. (2) the SARs were not
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Wallace Edward Brand was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Prisco were on the brief for intervenor Central Louisiana Electric Company. Where there is a competitive market. The Commission approves appli cations to sell electric energy at market based rates only if the seller and its affiliates do not have. Or adequately have mitigated. Arguing that CLECO does in fact have market 1 FERC defines market power as a seller's ability to
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: 5893 5894 AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION v.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the brief. I. Background The importation of a firearm into the United States is generally illegal unless the firearm is intended for govern ment use (generally for law enforcement). Is a sales sample. The BATF has a long standing practice that an application based upon government use of the firearm will not be approved unless the applicant submits a govern ment purchase order along with Form 6. An importer may bring a firearm (or any other good) into the territory of the United States without being deemed to have
	OPINION/ORDER We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations (
	OPINION/ORDER We find that the restrictions which were placed on the tobacco and sweat lodge ceremonies in the penitentiary. Are constitutional. Reasonableness of prison regulation is evaluated by considering. Whether there is valid and rational connection between regulation and legitimate penological interest such as safety. Whether there are alternative means for inmate to exercise right at issue). We agree with the district court that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the related First Amendment free exercise claims. 582 83 (8th Cir. 2004) (in determining whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (2) right was clearly established. Reasonable officials would understand that what they were doing violated that right). 2 The summary judgment record also shows that defendants did not violate any free exercise right. Or that reasonable officials would not have understood they were violating any such right. Prisoner is not entitled to insist on religious advisor whose beliefs are completely congruent with his own).
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Defendant appellant Charles David Owens was convicted by a jury for possession of an unregistered rifle with a seven inch barrel in violation 26 U.S.C.A. з 5861(d). contends the following: On appeal. Owens (1) that his due process rights were violated because 26 U.S.C.A. з 5861(d) is ambiguous. (2) that the district court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury that the government must prove that Owens knew that the NFA required the short barreled rifle in his possession to be registered.1 Appellant also contends that the evidence regarding Owens' possessory interest in the firearm is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Appellant was working part time at the Sports and Athletic Consignment Shop. Agent Williams asked Owens how it was operated. What parts were included with it. The two barrels which Owens offered to sell with the Agent carbine also were on the second shelf of the glass case. It is undisputed that the weapon was not At trial. 26 U.S.C.A. з 5861(d) arguments on appeal are also without merit and warrant no discussion.
	OPINION/ORDER Hankins claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Was dismissed on the Government's motion. 1 05 6932 United States v. Hankins from being admitted into evidence.2 We affirm the judgment because we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and the District Court did not err in admitting the taped conversations. Hankins was growing marijuana on his property. Hankins was at home when the law Mr. He was arrested after Detective Bibb discovered a bag of marijuana and 1.5 papers used to form a marijuana joint in his kitchen cabinet. A spray bottle were discovered and seized next to the marijuana plots. 212 marijuana plants were seized worth approximately $400. Hankins claimed that the cash was the proceeds from the sale of some farm equipment. Chick testified that he was approached by Mr. I was raised. They thought I was affiliated with them. 000 to give to someone
	OPINION/ORDER The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 46(d). * Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the disAccordingly. 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.
	UNITED STATES V. ORTIZ (1/14/2003, NO. 01-13961) Ortiz was a private in the U.S. Answering
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Erika Z. Barney were on the joint brief of intervenors Gaylord Con tainer Corporation. With him on the brief was Ellen D. Sharer were on the joint brief of intervenors Norfolk Southern Corporation. That the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The most recent of these consolida tions have led to severe disruptions in service. Although the Board was prompted to consider consolidation in the railroad indus try in part because of the BNSF/CN proposal. The Board announced a 15 month moratorium upon the filing of merger applications because the rail community is not in a position to now undertake what will likely be the final round of restructuring of the North American railroad industry. Because [the Board's] current rules are simply not appropriate for addressing the broad concerns associated with reviewing business deals geared to produce two transcontinental railroads. The petitioners' central argument and the theme underlying most of its arguments is that. The Board must accept when proffered any merger application that is complete.
	OPINION/ORDER Special Agent Douglas Moore was the only identified individual defendant. I. Ordnance is a manufacturer and distributor of explosive devices. The first is by export to foreign countries or foreign companies. The second is pursuant to Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. He had told ATF agents on several occasions that his business was over regulated and that ATF should not have jurisdiction over its activities. ATF does not have authority. To regulate sales to foreign governments when they are made under contracts with the United States military. It called them
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER Was on the brief for appellant. With him on the briefs was Deanne E. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Because the DOJ has failed to explain adequately why it could not have pleaded the other exemptions on which it wished to rely in the original district court proceedings. I. Background Maydak was convicted of wire fraud. While his appeal from his criminal conviction was pending. That request was forwarded to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (
	CITY OF TUSCALOOSA V. HARCROS CHEMICALS, INC. (10/23/1998, NO. 95-6234) Remand for further proceedings. I. A. The plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors in this case are thirty nine Alabama municipal entities that purchase repackaged chlorine for the treatment of drinking water. Repackaged chlorine is liquid chlorine that has been pressurized and stored in containers for delivery to. The five defendant corporations are chemical companies that repackage or distribute chlorine in Alabama.
	OPINION/ORDER Although much of the class's evidence of behavior in the potash industry was consistent with a price fixing conspiracy. The court held that the facts were equally consistent with legal oligopolistic behavior. The potash industry is an oligopoly1 in which the producers ended a price war and raised prices dramatically. The question is whether the class has shown that the 1 An oligopoly is a market in which there are few sellers. 3 new prices resulted from an agreement among the producers to raise and stabilize prices. Potash is a mineral which is an essential ingredient in fertilizer. Because potash is an essential ingredient. The demand for potash is
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is Ernest Scott's second appeal to this court from a decision by the Benefits Review Board (the Board) upholding an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision to deny him benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We remanded the case for a determination of whether Scott is totally disabled. Of whether his disability was caused at least in part by pneumoconiosis. The ALJ found the medical evidence did not indicate that Scott was totally disabled or that any disability was caused in part by pneumoconiosis. We find that the ALJ committed error in failing to consider a reasoned medical opinion indicating that Scott is totally disabled and in erroneously relying on the opinions of two doctors who did not diagnose Scott with pneumoconiosis. Scott still had to prove that he was totally disabled and that his disability was due to pneumoconiosis. The ALJ found that Scott did not establish that he was totally disabled from pneumoconiosis because he could not show that his disability was due solely to pneumoconiosis.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Richard E. On the brief were David W. Arguing that temporary retention of data for at most six months is neces sary to audit the background check system to ensure both its accuracy and privacy. If the firearm dealer is in a state that has elected to serve as a
	OPINION/ORDER South Carolina's economic loss rule provides that where a buyer's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product does not work properly. The buyer's remedies are limited to those prescribed by the law of contract. This doctrine demarcates the boundary between contract and tort in product liability cases by helping to determine which theories are applicable in a given action. Its contours and rationale have been carefully explained by Judge Traxler in Myrtle Beach Pipeline Corp. v. Whose injuries are traditionally remedied by the law of torts. We would nonetheless reject it. 3 A contract involving the delivery of both goods and services is classified as a sale of goods governed by the U.C.C. where its
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: When is a rifle a machinegun? Firearms (
	OPINION/ORDER Packaged them for the retail consumer. 3M is a manufacturing powerhouse. It was NicSand's only competing supplier of DIY retail automotive coated abrasives and now. It is a monopolist of what NicSand alleges to be a distinct economic market. The wholesale and retail markets for DIY retail automotive abrasives are small and highly concentrated. Although the retailers were not contractually bound to stay with a particular supplier. The gravamen of the Amended Complaint is that 3M monopolized and attempted to monopolize the abrasives market through the exclusivity provisions of the contracts that the discounts accompanied. It is possible to draw certain conclusions from the allegations. The complaint notes that sales by the six largest retailers accounted for 80% of the retail market and that 3M executed exclusive contracts with four leaving only Wal Mart (which was subject to the wrap around program) and Pep Boys as possible distributors for NicSand's products. This change would have increased 3M's (retail) market share from 20% to 73% (assuming that NicSand and 3M split the Pep Boys's business evenly).
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. To the extent that Anderson's action is consid ered as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. з 1983 (West Supp. 1998). Is not a state actor within the meaning of з 1983. To the extent the action is premised on diversity jurisdiction. 373 (1978). 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 the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. district court. 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 S were on brief. Just three days after receiving the Pionero Certificate and thirteen months after she was hired. Alleging that El Conquistador fired her because she was Puerto Rican in violation of Title VII. Its focus on Feliciano's evidence of discriminatory animus is consistent with our prior decisions in which summary judgment has tended to stand or fall on whether the plaintiff adduced adequate evidence that the employer's stated reason for its action was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See. We conclude as the district court did that summary judgment was appropriate.II.
	OPINION/ORDER The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as
	OPINION/ORDER Who was a member of the panel. A supporting affidavit that was crossreferenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search. BATF agent Michael Johnson uncovered the scheme when he found documents in a Missouri gun dealer's shop that linked Baranski to the dealer and when he learned that one of Baranski's letters of interest was forged. The agents were met by Saeid Shafizadeh. At which point the officers told him that it was under seal. One agent then told Shafizadeh that they were looking for firearms owned by Baranski (or by his company. Shafizadeh complained that the search was illegal because the warrant itself failed to describe with particularity what the agents could seize. Escorted the agents to the basement of the building where the bonded warehouse was located. The court concluded that probable cause supported the warrant and that
	OPINION/ORDER This case presents the question of whether construction workers'
	OPINION/ORDER Argued for appellee.а With him on the brief were John M. Which affirmed the PTO s refusal to register as a trademark Pacer s adhesive container cap design on the ground that the design was not inherently distinctive.а In re Pacer Tech.. 2002).а Because the Board s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Refused to register Pacer s application on the basis that the adhesive container cap was not inherently distinctive.а To address the refusal. Pacer submitted five affidavits of consumers stating that Pacer s container cap design was a source identifier of Pacer s product.а Nonetheless. The examining attorney maintained his refusal to register the adhesive container cap because it was not inherently distinctive.а As support. The examining attorney referred to the cover pages of eleven United States Design Patents showing drawings of various adhesive container caps.а The container caps in these design patents all have a crown.
	KENT A. LOMONT V. PAUL O'NEILL Halbrook argued the cause for appellants.
	OPINION/ORDER Norton is substituted for her predecessor. Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. OPINION PER CURIAM: Before this en banc court are the district court's opinion and judgment entered pursuant to our court's mandate in 5627 Alaska v. There was no justification for taking so unusual an action here. We ordinarily do this only when there is a direct conflict between two Ninth Circuit opinions and a panel would not be free to follow either. No such conflict was asserted. Have provided a clear statement of the issues raised. A panel opinion would likely have emphasized the points raised 5628 by Judge Rymer in her separate opinion: that the present appeal asks this court to resolve the precise question we had already decided in the same case. The issue before the panel then would have been whether the law of the case applied. Or whether this case falls into one of the exceptions to that doctrine and there is nothing presented by the parties that would lead me to believe that an exception would have been applicable.
	OPINION/ORDER Christopher had backed onto the outfield grass between first and second base when a groundball was hit his way. Christopher's pupil is now permanently dilated. Christopher alleges that the defendants easily could have repaired the hazardous lip after the first injury but neither fixed the defect nor warned him of its existence. The district court reasoned that the defendants had no control over when and where a softball would bounce and thus could not have been deliberately indifferent. We review the district court's з 1915A dismissal de novo and will affirm if it appears beyond doubt that no set of facts can sustain Christopher's claim for relief. As we have said repeatedly. Fact pleading is not necessary to state a claim for relief. His allegations of personal involvement are limited to Karl Gast (or Gatz). We have thus assumed that he seeks to proceed only against those three in their individual capacities. This is where Christopher's complaint falters. The question of the defendants' culpability is subjective.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was David M. Tony Kempenich Memorial Chapter 21 (
	OPINION/ORDER Louis Napier was actually John Napier. John Napier is actually Louis's brother. The charge eventually was nolle prossed. He was not entitled to bring the action under the dictates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Standard of Review We review for abuse of discretion a district judge's decision that an in forma pauperis complaint is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. з1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Bilal 1 The relevant part of that statute states: [T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that н (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue. Or (B) the action or appeal н (i) is frivolous or malicious. Or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. з 1915(e)(2). 3 v. An action is frivolous if it is
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was James H. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. There are nine plaintiffs. Five are individuals who claim that although they are eligible for a certification. They are unable to obtain one. Two are persons whose ability to sell or transfer these fire arms allegedly has been impaired by the inability of prospec tive purchasers to obtain certifications. Two are local chief law enforcement officers. That he is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph appearing on the application are those of the applicant and that the firearm is intended by the applicant for lawful purposes.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Filed an application for disability benefits alleging he was disabled due to irritability. The application was denied and after a hearing on April 11. (2) did not have an impairment or combination of impairments which met or equaled the criteria of any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. (3) was prevented from performing his past relevant work. A vocational expert testified that there was work in the national economy that Smith could perform. The ALJ found that Smith was not disabled. The magistrate judge determined that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. This appeal followed. 2 This court must determine whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Whether the correct legal standards were applied. Substantial evidence is that evidence which
	OPINION/ORDER Suffered cruel and unusual punishment when he was transferred to a housing unit where smoking was permitted. The District Court also noted that McBride's claim for money damages was unexhausted for the alternate reason that he had never requested damages during the administrative process. Which was construed as a discovery request directed to Defendants. That letter was not received by the S.C.I. Which was after McBride filed suit. 3 1 Court also noted that Spruill v. After each motion was granted. We directed the parties to discuss whether the motions to dismiss were improperly converted into motions for summary judgment by the District Court. Was harmless error. We note that pro se litigants have an obligation to present issues for review. Although the briefs filed by pro se litigants are construed broadly. McBride's arguments for our consideration of a conversion issue are unsuccessful.2 We will evaluate whether the District Court otherwise properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and whether it appropriately denied McBride's motion for reconsideration.
	OPINION/ORDER Williams was originally sentenced to 262 months of imprisonment. Arguing that his sentence is unreasonable. The court should decide whether any traditional departures under the guidelines are appropriate. In determining whether the sentence is reasonable. Considering whether: (1) the court failed to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight. Williams contends that his sentence is unreasonable for three reasons: first. His criminal history is overstated. Williams's argument regarding the disparity created by the crack/powder cocaine ratio is without merit. Spears reiterated the conclusion of previous panels that sentences within the guidelines range are not unreasonable solely on account of the crack/powder disparity. Williams's argument that his criminal history is overstated also fails. We do not agree that Williams's criminal history was overstated or that the District Court failed to adequately consider this argument. Williams's final argument that the District Court failed to properly consider the з 3553(a) factors is wholly incorrect.
	OPINION/ORDER S. Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) advisory sentencing range was 46 57 months and the district court1 sentenced her to 46 months incarceration. Akers argues the sentence is unreasonable. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 1 I Akers was employed from May 2001 until June 2005 as a federal corrections officer at a BOP facility in Forrest City. The investigation revealed inmate Terrell Guy was communicating with Akers via a cellular telephone that had been smuggled into the facility. Was also implicated in the scheme and confirmed Akers had smuggled marijuana and cocaine into the facility. Both Guy and McNeal also told investigators they had engaged in sexual acts with her while she was a corrections officer at the facility. She was later charged in a nine count indictment On appeal. Akers denies she was paid $4000 or that she engaged in sexual relations with Guy or McNeal. Object to these facts in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) and they are deemed admitted. (Providing or Possessing Contraband in Prison) requires the application of a cross reference to з 2D1.1 when the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. з 1791(a)(1) and subject to punishment under 18 U.S.C. з 1791(b)(1).
	OPINION/ORDER The district court1 found that Colbert was subject to an advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 262 327 months. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 1 based the sentence н which was below the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range н on the section 3553(a) factors. 261 62 (2005) (sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness. Section 3553(a) factors will guide appellate courts in determining whether sentence is unreasonable). 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
	N:\DOCS\E-DOS\2-5\05-4277 US V. FORTUNE.WPD Arguing that the sentence is unreasonable and that imposing the 10 year minimum on the drug count The Honorable James M. We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered those factors and whether appellate court's review of factors leads it to conclude they support reasonableness of sentence).
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the sentence was unreasonable because Carreon had not committed any crimes other than illegally returning to the United States. We conclude that the reasonableness argument is without merit. 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is not whether district court quoted or cited з 3553(a). 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (nothing in з 3553(a) requires
	OPINION/ORDER As this is solely within the District Court's discretion. Although the parties may have discussed the possibilities of various factors having an impact on the sentence and the possibility of a certain sentencing range. The agreement further states that: The decision to file a motion for departure will be in the sole discretion of the United States Attorney. The Defendant understands that the United States Attorney will decide whether the Defendant has performed substantial assistance sufficient to warrant such a motion. The Defendant further understands that if a motion is filed. The Court will decide whether the Defendant has performed substantial assistance and. The amount of reduction in sentence that is to be granted. Landis contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to compel the government to move for an additional sentence reduction based on his substantial assistance. He must make a substantial threshold showing that the government's refusal to move for an additional sentence reduction was irrational or based on an unconstitutional motive.
	OPINION/ORDER Cunningham's base level was set at level twenty rather than level fourteen. He was not eligible for a
	N:\DOCS\PATTY\06-1638 HDC V. MINNTECH OPN 1.18.WPD Inc (
	OPINION/ORDER Conclude that the sentence which was at the bottom of the undisputed Guidelines range is not unreasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is whether district court actually considered з 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court's review of factors leads to conclusion that they support reasonableness of district court's sentencing decision). 606 07 (8th Cir. 2005) (all that is required is evidence that district court considered relevant matters.
	OPINION/ORDER McGee contends the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. з 3553(a). Although the sentence was
	N:\DOCS\E-DOS\12-4\06-2036.US V. WELLS.OPN.RWG.WPD Wells told Officer Sedlmayr that he was prohibited from possessing firearms and that the Mauser belonged to Reents. Wells cooperated with Special Agent Hampton's questioning and told Elsen to give Special Agent Hampton a .22 caliber Marlin rifle (
	OPINION/ORDER 2004 DRAGNET complaint stating that Jones was selling narcotics from the Euclid address. That he had been involved in a shooting the previous day and that he was planning a murder for that day. The CCU was assigned to execute the search warrant. The search warrant was executed by two state and four federal officers of the CCU. Closed the car door and followed the officers' orders. 2 The officers noted that Jones's position and actions were consistent with participation in a drug transaction with an individual in the car. The car's side and rear windows were heavily tinted. Although the front windshield was clear. Two additional firearms and ammunition matching the AK 47 were discovered in the search of the residence. The documents and photograph were seized. Jones was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Arguing that the warrant for the residence was invalid because it was not issued by a federal magistrate judge and was not supported by probable cause.
	OPINION/ORDER Alvarado argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account the nature and circumstances of the crime. The 135 month sentence was within the undisputed Guidelines range. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight.
	OPINION/ORDER Fred Walker was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. Was arrested as part of a heroin investigation. Walker was forcibly removed from his vehicle. Which is commonly used to dilute heroin. Was also found in the compartment. Men's clothing and shoes were found on the right side of the bed. Women's clothing and shoes were found on the left side of the bed. After Walker was released from the hospital. He was taken to the police headquarters for booking. Walker was sentenced in 1986 in Missouri state court to serve 15 years in prison. Was released on parole on February 6. Was discharged from parole on July 29. Claiming the conviction was
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether the court erred in finding that the Creditor established by a preponderance of evidence all elements necessary to except from discharge as fraudulent under Section 532(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code a debt arising from a failed sale of a business. The record on appeal is limited to items which were presented to the trial court. Items included in an appendix to a brief are likewise limited to items from the trial court's docket as well as any transcripts from the court below. The Creditor's motion to strike is granted. The affidavit and letter attached to the Debtor's brief will not be and have not been considered. This is not a proper issue on appeal of a civil judgment of non dischargeability. 2 1 In 2004. The Creditor was interested in operating his own business. The Creditor had known the Debtor for several years and was aware that he owned and operated a retail business known as Mr. The Debtor told the Creditor that he was interested in getting out of the retail business.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court1 found Larkins was a career offender based in part on two prior drug offenses. Larkins maintains his sentence is unreasonable. Arguing his criminal history is overstated and the court failed to consider. The sentenceнwhich was within the applicable Guidelines rangeнis not unreasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER Peery argues that the court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it was at the top of the Guidelines range and the court considered only the nature and circumstances of the offense to the exclusion of other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable Fernando J. We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. The court was not required to explicitly discuss in open court each and every section 3553(a) sentencing factor. 756 (8th Cir. 2005) (nothing in з 3553(a) requires
	OPINION/ORDER Ramirez argues the sentence is unreasonable. We conclude the sentence is not unreasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. з 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ellison at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that presumption). 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight.
	OPINION/ORDER United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 previously was deported after conviction for crime of violence). We have already rejected a similar Sixth Amendment challenge. Counsel also argues that Ruiz Martinez's sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. з 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ruiz Martinez within the Guidelines range. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that presumption). 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight.
	OPINION/ORDER Suggesting that the sentence is unreasonable. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 1 We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. з 3553(a) factors in sentencing Garcia Sanchez within the Guidelines range. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that presumption). 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that Ware should have been sentenced at or below the bottom of the Guidelines range. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 1 We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
	N:\DOCS\E-DOS\9-8\05-3703 USA V. FRANCIS OPN.8.28.WPD Francis is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and has developed a reputation as a world renowned firearms expert. Francis was charged with conspiring with the Trimbells to distribute firearms without a license in violation of federal law. Francis pleaded guilty to one count and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and four years' probation and fined $3. The Probation Office reminded Francis that he was prohibited from acting as a gun dealer and that he was not to handle or possess firearms. Francis and his wife were concerned about the legality of their arrangement and were advised by Francis's probation officer to contact the Bureau of Alcohol. That is. Which is a high end firearms store owned by his wife. Adjacent to the WRA is a pawn shop that is also owned by Mrs. Which is why almost all business was conducted by phone. Who was to sell it on behalf of WRA. Francis and the informant were videotaped entering WRA's firearms vault. Westerman is Francis's step son. Westerman is an officer and employee of both the WRA and the pawn shop.
	OPINION/ORDER Asserting that the evidence supporting it was insufficient. Although both brothers were apparently intoxicated during the alleged confrontation and while talking with police. Even though some of Officer Rodgers's testimony may have been double hearsay. Shackelford pointing his gun at his brother were sufficiently reliable to support an enhancement to Mr. The brothers' statements about the part each of them played in the incident were statements against their penal interests. What they told the police about the occurrence may well have qualified as excited utterances made without the opportunity for reflection. The fact that the brothers' statements qualified for at least one exception from the hearsay rule renders them more reliable than they otherwise would have been. Nearly all of Officer Rodgers's testimony about what Deputy Thompson told him is corroborated by the deputy's report. We have no reason to believe that Officer Rodgers would have been mistaken about the contents of Deputy Thompson's report or misrepresented it.
	OPINION/ORDER Suggesting the sentence was an abuse of discretion. United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 criminal history score was improper double counting. Or (a)(6) is also counted for purposes of determining criminal history points pursuant to Chapter Four). It is not impermissible double counting). We further conclude that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion or unreasonable. Which was within the undisputed Guidelines range. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER Oraina Fellows were indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base between November 1. Cooley was sentenced to life in prison and Shepherd. Skannell were each sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment. Shepherd was indicted and referred to as
	OPINION/ORDER Finding that Choate is not disabled because he has sufficient residual function capacity to perform a significant The Honorable Andrew W. Was diagnosed with non Q wave myocardial infarction. Although he stated that Choate's allegations of chest pain and difficulty breathing are
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing the sentence is unreasonable. The sentence imposed was within the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 77 96 months. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Presumption can be rebutted if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining a district court is not required to specifically mention з 3553(a) in sentencing defendant. Relevant inquiry is whether the court actually considered з 3553(a) factors and whether the appellate court's review of those factors leads to a conclusion that they support the reasonableness of the district court's sentencing decision). We conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the sentence is unreasonable given several bases for departure. Because the ruling was discretionary and not the result of a mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart. The sentence is not unreasonable merely because of sentencing differences among judicial districts in illegal alien cases. 915 16 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparity resulting from fact that
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the sentence is The Honorable Richard G. We find that the district court's sentence is not unreasonable. Dao was sentenced at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER County Juvenile Detention Center (
	N:\DOCS\DIANE\05-3076 US V. SILVA.WPD United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 1 Counsel argues the sentence is unreasonable because of several mitigating factors which call for a sentence below the 41 month prison sentence imposed by the district court. Both of these factors are listed in 18 U.S.C. з 3553(a) as relevant sentencing considerations. 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is whether district court considered з 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court's review of those factors leads to conclusion that they support reasonableness of sentencing decision). The sentence was within the undisputed advisory Guidelines range. 915 16 (8th Cir. 2006) (sentencing disparity resulting from fact that
	OPINION/ORDER That Adams was responsible for at least thirty kilograms of heroin while distributing drugs in the St. Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional because they permit a sentence to be calculated based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The remedial holding of Booker: that application of the Guidelines will be constitutional if they are read by the courts not as mandatory but only as advisory. We are. The District Court arrived at the thirty plus kilograms of heroin by crediting evidence of not only Adams's participation in the Rush Bey conspiracy the conspiracy for which he was convicted but also his earlier involvement in the so called Serrano conspiracy. For which he was not tried. The court determined that the heroin that was shown to have been purchased for distribution during Adams's participation in both conspiracies was relevant conduct that should be considered in calculating his base offense level. Conduct is relevant for sentencing purposes if it is
	OPINION/ORDER Finding that its decisions were reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The appellants essentially ration the supply of corn available for the geese to eat because the geese will not venture into the standing corn. Planting and harvesting methods are permissible under FSW regulations as long as they are considered
	OPINION/ORDER Was sentenced to 29 months' imprisonment. Who cited information giving reason to believe that there were rifles and handguns in the residence. The issuing judge specified that the officers were authorized to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their presence. After he was indicted. Arguing that the no knock entry was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. The district court2 disagreed that a no knock entry was reasonable. Was 29 months' imprisonment. Gaver argues that the evidence gained from the search of his home should have been suppressed. The search was not reasonable The Honorable F. Gaver's motion to suppress was premised entirely on his contention that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to knock and announce their presence. Because even if there were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Gaver also argues that his sentence was unreasonable. It is evident. A properly calculated guideline sentence is presumptively reasonable. We conclude that the sentence of 29 months' imprisonment was not unreasonable.
	OPINION/ORDER Noting that it was required to calculate the guideline range
	N:\DOCS\SUSAN\05-2766 US V. WALKER.WPD Arguing that Walker's sentence is unreasonable. United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. з 3553(a) factors guide inquiry as appellate courts review sentences to determine whether they are reasonable). 717 18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (presumptively reasonable sentence can be unreasonable if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. We conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 appointed counsel and a pro se supplemental brief raising multiple claims that counsel was ineffective. Pirani is inapposite because it deals only with plain error when a defendant is sentenced under a mandatory scheme. 406 F.3d at 550 (application of Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory is error that is plain if in violation of United States v. The record reflects that the district court knew the Guidelines were advisory. Nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that his sentence is reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. Presumption can be rebutted if district court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. Snider's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are more appropriate for post conviction proceedings. Ineffective assistance claims are better left for postconviction proceedings because facts from outside original record usually must be developed to decide such claims.
	OPINION/ORDER App. 2000) (threshold question that must be answered in negligence case is what duty. While federal agency was required to follow federal standards. There were no similar state standards imposing any duty).
	OPINION/ORDER Ben Mullins was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. The district court1 also found that he was an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. з 924(e)(2)(B). Which was a Mondial Brevettata Model 1938 .22 caliber starter gun. There was no dispute at trial that Mullins was a convicted felon. The jury found that his possession of the starter gun was possession of a
	N:\DOCS\DEANN\05-1761+ US V. RUIZ FINAL OPN.REV 5.5.WPD Appellants have filed separate briefs raising issues regarding sufficiency of the evidence. Torres told Augustine he was bringing up a
	OPINION/ORDER Montgomery had been to the store earlier and told the owner that his father would be purchasing handguns for him because he was underage. Montgomery did not tell the store employee he was dealing with that he was underage but told him that he and his father were gun collectors and the amount he had to spend. Several weeks later the two tried to purchase additional guns from Pawn Express but were turned down because the owner was suspicious about the first sale. After two of the purchased handguns were discovered in Chicago. Montgomery also stated that his father was a gun collector who wanted to buy firearms and provided the funds for the purchase. When the agent was asked about his report at trial and whether Montgomery had had an opportunity to review it and affirm its accuracy. The agent testified that he 2 could do so
	OPINION/ORDER Susan Anne Seifert was convicted of arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 844(i). That the evidence as a whole was insufficient to convict. The Government argues that this person is Seifert. Because the original video is
	OPINION/ORDER Jose Maria Sanchez Godinez was found guilty by a jury of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He also alleges that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to define
	OPINION/ORDER Scism testified that he observed that the vehicle did not have a front license plate and proceeded to stop the vehicle. Scism approached the vehicle and advised Bueno that he had been stopped because his vehicle was lacking license plates and because the officers could not observe a temporary vehicle registration affixed to the vehicle. Bueno handed over his license and pointed to the temporary registration that was affixed to the vehicle's windshield. While Bueno was waiting in the patrol car. Bueno responded that the vehicle belonged to his brother and that he was traveling from California to St. Told Bueno to have a safe trip. Told him that he was going to have to search the vehicle. Scism found a false floor and an access door leading to a compartment that was not standard for such a vehicle. Because this caused him to suspect that Bueno was trafficking contraband. The district court applied the 2002 version of the sentencing guidelines2 and determined that Bueno's base offense level was thirty six and that з 841(b)(1)(A) required a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in Neither party argues on appeal that a different version of the guidelines should apply in this case.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from an Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri1 issued on September 12. 700 for his services in the bankruptcy case pursuant to local rule.2 The Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed on August 8. 601 of the attorney fee was paid through the Plan. While he was an attorney practicing law in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After finding that his efforts to refinance Chapter 13 bankruptcies in other jurisdictions was
	OPINION/ORDER The evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.
	OPINION/ORDER Holding that Baum did not have a contract for a term of years. Baum was then employed by a competitor. Helget said he would have Baum's meeting notes typed up and signed. Baum's salary is $39. It also provides that Baum is due a $2. HGP is to pay for or buy out the lease if Baum is discharged
	OPINION/ORDER Ron and Joann Fitzgerald are the parents of S.F. Who was born in 1992 and later enrolled for several years in the Camdenton R III School District. The District claims that his behavior and academic performance indicated he might have a disability. The Fitzgeralds have had S.F. evaluated privately and provided special education services to him through private sources.1 The Fitzgeralds have expressly waived all benefits under the IDEA. Authorizing an evaluation of S.F.
	OPINION/ORDER Olvey contends that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. Olvey was served with the protection order while incarcerated in the county jail. Olvey was given notice that he had five days to challenge the order by filing a Request for Hearing form. A hearing was conducted on Olvey's request for modification. Olvey chose not to attend but was represented by counsel. Asserting probable cause to believe that Olvey was a prohibited person in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 922(g).2 The 2 18 U.S.C. з 922(g) states: It shall be unlawful for any person . . . (8) who is subject to a court order thatн 2 search warrant application included copies of the original protection order and the journal entry modifying the order. Paragraph 4(f) of Meadows's supporting affidavit stated: OLVEY is listed as the Respondent on a current Domestic Abuse Protection Order . . . dated January 23. A copy of the Protection Order and related Journal are attached as exhibit 3. . . . [T]his paragraph states
	OPINION/ORDER This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Larrabee argues on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable. Were two of the four members of a group known as the
	OPINION/ORDER Police discovered two objects that were suspected to be homemade firearm silencers. The objects were industrial mufflers for pneumatic air valves that had been modified with holes bored lengthwise through their centers. Hoselton told the police that she and Dukes had their
	OPINION/ORDER Is The Honorable James E. We believe the sentence imposed by the district court is not unreasonable. 717 18 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable. 1151 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentence may be unreasonable if trial court (1) failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight. We have found no nonfrivolous issues.
	OPINION/ORDER Appellant argues that the district court erred in: (1) holding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that The Honorable Nanette Laughrey. '' and (3) failing to grant a mistrial after a government witness violated an order in limine and testified that appellant was involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Local officers responded and were invited inside the residence by Tina Urick. The residence was a mobile home with a large addition consisting of a bedroom and a living area. The officers contacted the ATF and told appellant and his wife that they were being detained. The search warrant was then executed. Male clothing was also found inside the bedroom where the firearms were located. 2 Appellant was placed under arrest and read his Miranda rights by an ATF agent. Appellant stated that he understood his rights and thought (erroneously) that he could possess firearms because he was no longer on probation or parole. After he was notified of his Miranda rights. The district court ruled that evidence about appellant's alleged involvement with drugs was inadmissible.
	OPINION/ORDER Royce Dale Young was injured while working as a
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that testimony used against him was hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause. Told the police dispatcher that Brun and Oakgrove were arguing. Was drunk and in possession of a rifle. The front door was open. Oakgrove was sitting at the kitchen table. Carlson was also present. Grolla asked what was going on. That he had fired a rifle in the bathroom while she was in it. Traurig showed Oakgrove Grolla's report about the shooting incident and asked her to confirm that the report was accurate. Oakgrove stated that it was. The district court ruled the defendant was not a prohibited 2 person under federal law and rejected defendant's guilty plea. Oakgrove was pregnant with her second child with Brun. The statements were admitted into evidence as excited utterances. Were inconsistent with Oakgrove's testimony at trial because they suggested she was in front of the rifle when Brun fired it. She thought she was alongside him. Nor what was said between them during the altercation. She testified that her ears were ringing badly and that she was scared after he had fired the rifle.
	OPINION/ORDER 100 Scottsbluff residents were evacuated. Concluding that those claims were preempted by federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State law is preempted when it conflicts with or frustrates federal law. Because Plaintiffs concede that this aspect of their appeal is moot if we affirm the district court's other rulings. Or order (1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard. (2) is not incompatible with a law. Regulations adopted pursuant to the FRSA will preempt a particular state law tort claim only if they
	OPINION/ORDER I Douglas is a wholesale grocery. Douglas's account was credited with only $24. Had quit in late 1999 and it was unable to find an immediate replacement. By the time a new controller was hired there was a three month backlog. CNB's employee testified she sent the request through the Federal Reserve hoping it would not notice it was untimely. CNB's president testified the information should have been verified. The adjustment request was received by Wells Fargo. Adjustment requests are handled by regional adjustment centers. When the request was received in Houston it was forwarded to Wells Fargo's Southwestern Adjustment Center (SAC) in Phoenix. There were occasions when USA's Wells Fargo account had sufficient funds to cover the discrepancy. The funds were transferred out of the account and there were no longer any funds to pay the adjustment request. As these events were unfolding. USA was sliding into insolvency. The parties agree Houston would have paid the additional $216. SAC notified CNB 4 there were no funds in the account and denied the adjustment request.
	OPINION/ORDER Geitz was convicted in Missouri state court of burglary. He was sentenced to twentyseven years imprisonment. He was incarcerated at MCC. The court issued an order denying Geitz's motion for appointment of counsel and stating the only communication it had received from Geitz was his October 1997 letter. Geitz further alleges he was prejudiced because when the court did not receive his financial information it denied his motion for appointment of counsel. Barnes moved for summary judgment arguing she was protected by qualified immunity. There was no evidence to support Geitz's claim she intentionally interfered with the delivery of his legal mail. The district court concluded there was evidence showing Geitz mailed the items to the clerk's office but they never arrived. [A] finder of fact could infer from the circumstantial evidence that the mail was sent but never received because Defendant Barnes did intentionally fail to send out the two pieces of mail. Barnes argues there is no evidence she intentionally interfered with Geitz's legal mail and he has failed to show he suffered any prejudice from the alleged interference.
	OPINION/ORDER Ziesman contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict and that the district court1 erred in several of its rulings. Is unconstitutional. Travis Ziesman was arrested by Iowa law enforcement authorities as a result of his participation in a methamphetamine distribution ring centered around supplier Vincent Deherrerea. Received occasional tips that Ziesman was using and manufacturing methamphetamine. Were starting rumors to discredit him. Ziesman also alleged that he was living with his parents and that trespassers were using his unoccupied farm to manufacture methamphetamine without his permission. Federal agents received a tip sufficient to establish probable cause that Ziesman was manufacturing methamphetamine and obtained a search warrant for his farmhouse. Was present at the farmhouse during the search and gave Agent Wempen information about Ziesman's methamphetamine manufacturing. Olthoff informed Agent Wempen that she was disavowing what she had told him on the day of the search.
	OPINION/ORDER Ken and Robert Fleck were each convicted following a jury trial of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Eldon Byers told police that he believed his propertyнitems that had been stolen from him a year earlierнwas at the Flecks' residence.1 When the officers arrived at the house. The officers explained they had a report Byers was living in the Flecks' house as a tenant at the time his property was stolen. It was assumed to be a burglary. Prompting their trip to the Fleck home. 21 that stolen property was in the home and asked if they might look around. The officers were invited in by Ken or Robert. Two other people were in the house. The officers looked only in the vicinity of the living room and dining room but stopped once they saw what could have been some of Byers' property in the dining room. Who were en route. Officer Kuiken and Detective Perna came across a bedroom that was padlocked. They returned to the living room and asked whose bedroom it was. Robert said that the bedroom was both his and Ken's.
	OPINION/ORDER Ray appeals the decision of the district court1 that the warning on his federal firearm license (FFL) was insufficient as a matter of law to support an estoppel byentrapment defense. Who was a federally licensed firearms dealer.
	OPINION/ORDER The firearms were discovered at Borer's home on July 26. Borer was subject to two protection orders. The court found that Borer's criminal history category was III. That the applicable sentencing range was 21 to 27 months. Borer argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to the court's failure to grant Borer an additional level for acceptance of responsibility and to the government's alleged breach of the plea agreement. We find nothing in the record to support a finding that although the notification was timely for purposes of the government. It was somehow untimely with respect to the court. We conclude that the district court's denial of a decrease of one additional level under з 3E1.1(b)(2) was clearly erroneous. The government asserted that Borer was ineligible for a threelevel reduction under з 3E1.1(b). The offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater. 2 the third level reduction is available only upon motion of the government.
	OPINION/ORDER Doran was hit twice. Doran testified he was asleep when he heard the ramming. Thinking the noise was a break in or a fight on the front porch. Saw laser lights and realized it was the police. Bent to set his gun on the floor when he was shot. Finding that Doran's injuries were the direct result of the Fourth Amendment violations. The tipster alleged: 2 ╖ that methamphetamine was being manufactured at the house to be searched. ╖ that Doran was selling crack cocaine and methamphetamine at the front door throughout the day. ╖ that drugs were stored in dresser drawers throughout the house. ╖ that guns were kept in the bedroom. Determined that cars parked at that location were registered to the Doran family. The task of executing the warrant was assigned to the Police Department's Street Narcotics Unit. A specialized unit whose primary function is to execute search warrants. Sergeant Greenwell was in charge of the Unit's entry team. Doran was shot soon after Officer Sumpter entered the house. Doran was not charged with an offense.
	OPINION/ORDER Craighead and Scott were still wrestling when Officer Michael Lee arrived shortly after Craighead had taken the gun from Scott. I. The facts are undisputed as to the events that preceded Lee's arrival on the scene where Craighead and Scott were wrestling over the gun. The only description of the gunman was that he was a black male. That shooting was reported by the dispatcher in three different announcements between 10:18:55 and 10:19:50. He was accompanied by Joyce McDougle. Was a black male. We have somebody on the phone reporting this. A shot was fired. As they were wrestling. Lee was in the vicinity. Lee thought that the gunman could be the one who was responsible for the two shootings earlier that morning. He then drove further until he came to the dumpster where the two men were wrestling. Took a gun away from another male and we have it at two nine seventeen North Oxford. Lee testified that he had already exited the squad car when that report was broadcast. Craighead's heirs argue that the timing of the events makes it likely that Lee was still in the squad car when the dispatcher broadcast the news that the gun had changed hands.
	OPINION/ORDER To whom the case was referred for decision by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 636(c) (2000). 1 I. Noted that
	OPINION/ORDER The firearms were discovered at Borer's home on July 26. Borer was subject to two protection orders. The court found that Borer's criminal history category was III. That the applicable sentencing range was 21 to 27 months. Borer argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not object to the court's failure to grant Borer an additional level for acceptance of responsibility and to the government's alleged breach of the plea agreement. We find nothing in the record to support a finding that although the notification was timely for purposes of the government. It was somehow untimely with respect to the court. We conclude that the district court's denial of a decrease of one additional level under з 3E1.1(b)(2) was clearly erroneous. The government asserted that Borer was ineligible for a threelevel reduction under з 3E1.1(b). The offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater. 2 the third level reduction is available only upon motion of the government.
	OPINION/ORDER Reddick had not generated a fact question as to whether ConAgra's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her was pretextual. The order denying the motion was entered on December 23. The district court granted Reddick's motion to dismiss voluntarily the other defendant. 2 2 Reddick is precluded from challenging the adverse grant of summary judgment. Because her November 20 Rule 60(b) motion was not filed within ten days of the October 28 entry of judgment. After her Rule 60(b) motion was denied. Which was well beyond the thirty day limit for filing a NOA from final judgment. We have jurisdiction to consider only the denial of Reddick's Rule 60(b) motion. 99495 (8th Cir.) (timely NOA is mandatory and jurisdictional). 597 (8th Cir. 2000) (because timely NOA is jurisdictional. Issue is raised sua sponte even if parties appear to concede jurisdiction). 238 F.3d at 998 (denial of relief under Rule 60(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. It appears that any errors in Frazier's second affidavit were at most the result of misunderstandings and not fraud.
	OPINION/ORDER Flora's options were to vest immediately and no limitations were placed on his right to exercise the options. Their appeals were consolidated for our review. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 3 2 1 FirePond is a computer software company. 2 After performing approximately sixty percent of the placements. FirePond officials informed Flora that FirePond was to become a publically traded company. Flora was also informed thatнas a condition of going forward with the initial public offering (
	OPINION/ORDER Was involved in a training exercise at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth. Several devices were approved for use by the role players. Gamradt's team of responders were tasked with securing the building in which the hostages were being held. Were fired upon by the prisoners as they approached the second floor via the stairwell. Since none were available. None of the guards were wearing gas masks. The black smoke grenade was intended to be detonated in the second floor hallway. Gamradt was one of fourteen participants who was affected by smoke inhalation н at least seven of whom sought medical treatment. That the black smoke grenade was manufactured by DTCA Wyoming and that the black smoke grenade displayed no warning regarding use indoors. The court found that the dangers raised by the black smoke grenade were open and obvious. The court found that DTCA was not compelled to warn the Bureau of Prisons about DTCA Wyoming's products because DTCA did not have knowledge of a defect. Nor did it have knowledge of the product's location.
	OPINION/ORDER This is our court's second consideration of Iowa laws regulating the construction of natural gas pipelines. We held that Iowa statutes regulating the safety of interstate natural gas pipelines were preempted by federal law. Were not severable from the safety provisions. Were thus preempted as well. Are subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Such certificates are granted only when the FERC finds that a company is willing and able to comply with the requirements. The company was authorized to do so under a
	OPINION/ORDER He was thirteen years old at the time. He is the only member of his family who has not gained legal immigrant or citizen status. With the exception of a four month period in 1984 when he was
	OPINION/ORDER Gill contends he was unfairly and prejudicially denied pretrial release. Tobacco and Firearms agent should not have been allowed to testify on fingerprinting issues. The district court gave the jury a confusing answer when asked whether knowing an item was in one's presence qualified as possession. Although Gill admitted before his arrest the shotgun was his. The issue is now moot. The denial of Gill's suppression motion is supported by testimony that the driver of the car in which Gill was riding reported during a valid traffic stop that a shotgun was in the car and Gill later spontaneously admitted to police the weapon was his. Gill's ineffective assistance claims are more properly raised in 28 U.S.C. з 2255 proceedings.
	OPINION/ORDER Harrell was employed by Parkdale Gin Company (Parkdale) in Parkdale. Harrell was severely burned when a fuse box that powered the mote system exploded as he turned the power back on after installing three new fuses. The following instructions were given to the jury over Madison's objection:2 Instruction No. 20:
	OPINION/ORDER Lippman was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order. Lippman argues that the district court should have given two jury instructions he requested and that з 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. They were denied entry. United States customs agents suspected that the two were drunk or under the influence of some other substance. A 9mm KELTEC pistol was found under the front passenger seat where Lippman was sitting. A .410 gauge revolver was discovered in a green duffle bag behind that seat. Johannesen told the agents that the firearms were his and later produced receipts showing that he had purchased them. After the firearms were discovered. Lippman and Johannesen were arrested for carrying loaded firearms in a vehicle and transported to the Mountrail County jail. Lippman was released from jail the next day after pleading guilty to a state charge of possession of a loaded .410 gauge Thunder Fire revolver in a motor vehicle. After learning that Lippman had been convicted of possessing a firearm while he was subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
	OPINION/ORDER VII because they were entirely dependent on the damages related testimony of Meterlogic's proffered expert. Meterlogic argues (1) that Redler's testimony was erroneously excluded and (2) that it is entitled to recover all money lost as a result of KLT's alleged fraud. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2 1 Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no issues of material fact in dispute. Summary judgment is properly entered. Id. (
	OPINION/ORDER Mark Backer was charged in a four count indictment with (1) being an unlawful user of a controlled substance and knowingly possessing fifty four firearms. He also contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he knowingly possessed a machine gun. I. Facts The Mandan Police Department received a tip from a confidential source that Backer was distributing drugs from his machine shop in Mandan. Kottsick told 2 the officers that Backer was living at a machine shop in Bismarck. We believe that Backer's ineffective assistance claims would be more appropriately addressed in a 28 U.S.C. з 2255 proceeding before the 1 A
	OPINION/ORDER Haines first contends his motion to suppress should have been granted because the officer's supporting affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods and omissions in violation of Franks v. That the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. The district court found Haines had not made a substantial preliminary showing that the officer's use of Haines's name was deliberate or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Since the person who bought the pseudoephedrine was driving a motorcycle registered to Haines and the motorcycle was parked in Haines's yard a short time later. Haines also argues the officer could not reasonably have smelled ether because of the wind's direction that day. He points out no ether was found on his premises. The district court held the mere fact that the Iowa City weather service provided different information than the wind information provided by police radio dispatch was insufficient to make a substantial showing that the officer affirmatively misled the court or recklessly disregarded the truth of whether or not he smelled ether.
	OPINION/ORDER Leathers argues that his convictions under з 922(g) were constitutionally deficient in that his possession of the firearm and ammunition lacked a sufficient impact on interstate commerce. Leathers crashed the truck he was driving and fled on foot before being apprehended by police officers. The firearm used in the shooting was discovered the next morning along the route of the chase. Leathers was charged in the circuit court of Jackson County with assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Was appointed as a special prosecutor because of an internal conflict in the Jackson County prosecutor's office. Was retained to represent Leathers. Leathers was sentenced on the state court convictions and received a sentence of ten years for second degree assault and a concurrent sentence of three years for armed criminal action. 2 A federal grand jury initially indicted Leathers on January 16. I. Leathers's first claim is that 18 U.S.C. з 922(g) as applied to him is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because his possession of a firearm and ammunition did not have a significant impact on interstate commerce.
	OPINION/ORDER Pelayo Jose Cuervo were convicted of numerous narcotics and firearms offenses. The firearms convictions that were unrelated to the conspiracy. Five kilograms or more of cocaine.3 The defendants were also charged with using firearms in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defendants were convicted of many of the charged counts.7 Norman was convicted of maintaining a continuing criminal enterprise and conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. He was also convicted of nine substantive counts of distributing methamphetamine. Cuervo was convicted of conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine. Schoenauer was convicted of conspiracy to distribute between fifty and five hundred grams of methamphetamine and between one hundred grams and one thousand kilograms of marijuana. Schoenauer was then tried separately and found guilty of three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. 3 4 5 6 7 21 U.S.C. зз 846 and 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. з 924(c)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. з 841(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(9).
	OPINION/ORDER Lewis stated that she was unable to work because of a variety of impairments. A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Dismissal is required when an inmate has not exhausted administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit.
	OPINION/ORDER None of which are compelling. We will follow the latter example. The information revealed
	OPINION/ORDER Baranski was not entitled to a hearing under Franks v. Because there was probable cause for issuance of the warrant regardless of the alleged errors. The warrant should not have been suppressed for lack of particularity. Even if the weapons should have been suppressed. Their admission at trial was harmless error because Baranski was charged with knowingly making false statements on machine gun importation applications. Military qualities were circumstantial evidence of Baranski's knowledge they were not being imported for sale to law enforcement. We conclude a reasonable jury could have found Baranski guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Knew the police letters were fraudulent. Baranski asserts the district court should have granted a new trial because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutorial misconduct must so infect the trial with unfairness that the defendant's conviction is a denial of due process). We conclude forfeiture was authorized under 28 U.S.C. з 2461(c). Which provides: If a forfeiture of property is authorized in connection with a violation of an Act of Congress.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude summary judgment was proper for the reasons explained in the district court's order as to Mr. Evans's claims that he was unconstitutionally exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). That he was subjected to retaliatory cell searches. That his legal papers were destroyed. 218 (8th Cir. 1994) (threat of retaliation is sufficient injury if made in retaliation for inmate's use of prison grievance procedure).
	OPINION/ORDER 1 Roxanne Abfalter and Michael Williams were convicted on a number of charges relating to their conspiracy knowingly to make false statements in the papers that accompany the purchase of a firearm. Are questions of law that we review de novo.
	OPINION/ORDER This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Is entitled to recover punitive damages for conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations.
	OPINION/ORDER Ira Earl Johnson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He appeals the district court's denial of his pre and post trial motions to suppress evidence obtained and statements made during what he contends was an illegal seizure. Hennepin County Deputy Sheriff Jason Engeldinger was assigned to security detail at the Century Plaza Building in downtown Minneapolis. Three other officers were on duty in the same capacity. Engeldinger's attention was drawn to the sound of very loud yelling and profanity. Johnson was directly facing Evans. Evans was leaning against a parked vehicle. Evans appeared to be frightened and was backing away from Johnson. As Engeldinger was in the process of verifying Johnson's identification. While he was running. Johnson was still on the ground with his hands beneath him. Eventually the officers were able to bring Johnson's hands from beneath his body and handcuff him. Johnson was charged in district court with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
	OPINION/ORDER I. Appellant Jack Dixon was born on August 21. Was Dixon's treating physician. Dixon was awarded benefits on his claim with an onset date of January 9. While Dixon was still receiving disability benefits based on his back and vision problems. He began to have heart problems. Dixon was admitted to the hospital on May 24. He was diagnosed with non cardiac chest pain. Dixon was discharged on May 26. The medication regime was altered throughout 1997 by Dr. Stated that Dixon's physical ability to perform activities of daily living were limited by coronary artery disease. Plunk reiterated her previous diagnosis and concluded:
	OPINION/ORDER Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 18 U.S.C. з 3231. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Defendant was indicted on December 21. The following is a summary of the government's theory of the facts as presented to the jury. Which was owned by defendant's parents and operated by defendant and his wife. He was gone for about a minute. Both she and defendant are cigarette smokers and had been smoking at the store on the day of the fire. Around the time Blankenship was radioing the dispatcher. The security system registered the time that defendant set the alarm as 11:02 p.m. and the time that the motion detector was activated as 11:06 p.m. The fire was extinguished at approximately 12:16 a.m. Was permitted to enter the store. Laclede Gas had shut off the gas to the One Stop building while the fire was being put out. An employee of Missouri Gas subsequently checked the lines and determined that gas was not a cause of.
	OPINION/ORDER Bobby Marvin Collins was convicted of possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. зз 922(g)(1) and 924(e) and was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. The driver's side window was down. Were sleeping. Officer Mercill then leaned into the vehicle through the open window
	OPINION/ORDER Appeals the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop that he argues was without constitutional justification. Contending that Long's sentence should have been enhanced pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. One Arkansas State Police officer were jointly conducting illegal drug and firearm surveillance at a Hot Springs residence. Norris wrote down the plate number and radioed to Hot Springs Police Officer Frank Abbott (who was not part of the surveillance team). Abbott ran the information from Long and the passenger through his Arkansas Crime Information Center computer 2 and learned that Long was on parole. Who was still seated in the car. Long was written a citation for driving with expired plates. It was before the arrest. Long unsuccessfully moved to suppress the pistol on the grounds that the traffic stop and the officers' continued questioning were unjustified under the Fourth Amendment. Although Long was convicted in 1996 of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance.
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND The facts are undisputed. Phillips is an inmate currently confined at the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (
	OPINION/ORDER The statute under which he was indicted. A grand jury indicted Wilson as a felon who was in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1). 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.3 However. 857 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (holding that
	OPINION/ORDER Testified that he was working as a clerk at a T J Maxx store in Des Moines. Courtney Steverson testified that Brown gave her a counterfeit $50 bill to pay for a round of drinks while she was working as a cocktail waitress at the SuperToad lounge in Des Moines. The government's final witness was Tony Every. The district court ruled that testimony limited
	OPINION/ORDER Bushwa Farmer was found guilty and convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Including a sentence enhancement for obstructing justice because Farmer testified that he was not in possession of the firearm. Farmer was arrested by Kansas City. The gun was seized and sent to the crime lab. Where it was logged into evidence. The traffic charges were resolved. No charges were brought relating to the handgun. Forty days after the firearm was delivered to the crime lab. It was destroyed pursuant to what the government claims is Kansas City. A program in Kansas City through which felons arrested within the city limits of Kansas City are charged in federal court rather than in city or state court. Farmer was convicted. The district court granted his motion for a new trial after it concluded the prosecution had elicited testimony from ATF Agent Randall Roberts that was more After reviewing Kansas City Police Department policies on line. There is a policy outlining destruction of firearms voluntarily turned into police.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude dismissal was proper because Mr.
	OPINION/ORDER After the Missouri Highway Patrol searched a vehicle in which Embrey was a passenger. Embrey was indicted for and later pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Without holding an evidentiary hearing denied Embrey's motion on the basis that the search had been lawful and Embrey had refused to admit the property was his. Embrey is not entitled under any circumstances to return of the firearms seized during the search. 670 (8th Cir. 2000) (district court properly concluded without receiving evidence that convicted felon was not entitled to return of firearms). We conclude that the district court erred in holding that Embrey could not recover his property because the search had been found lawful: the plain language of Rule 41(e) provides that an individual may properly move for return of property if he was aggrieved by an unlawful search or by a deprivation of property. The record is unclear as to where some of the property is being held.
	OPINION/ORDER Mattis was 25 years old and was working as an apprentice electrician. Carlon cement is manufactured by Oatey Co. It is labeled and sold by Carlon Electrical Products. Carlon cement includes six Mattis was a member of the National Guard and 1987 and 1988. Mattis was tested for tuberculosis. Four of which are respiratory irritants: tetrahydrofuran. Mattis spent most of the day outside laying ten foot sections of three quarter inch polyvinyl chloride (pvc) pipe in a trench that was six inches wide and eighteen inches deep. The temperature was 109 degrees. Mattis read the safety warnings on the label of the Carlon cement.2 When Mattis was not using the glue. His symptoms were worsening. It was difficult for him to breathe. He went to a doctor and was treated for dehydration and released. X rays of his chest were taken on July The label stated:
	OPINION/ORDER Was a possible suspect in an armed robbery. Might have about
	OPINION/ORDER (Bunge) is a supplier of feed products used by dairies. Which until March of 2000 was in the business of selling grain and grain products to. Was also a participant in the 2000 prepayment program. This payment was $468. 000 was no longer part of the Las Uvas Valley account. Thus it is mere speculation on the Kasbergens' part that the source of the money paid to Bunge was the Cache Creek account. Nebraska case law suggests that we must presume that the money transferred was money that Eades had the right to transfer and that the Kasbergens' money remained in the GCI account. The presumption is that the debtor transfers that property which he has the right to transfer). In light of our holding that the district court did not err in finding that Bunge was not guilty of conversion. We need not address the district court's additional finding that Bunge was a holder in due course of the $468. The judgment is affirmed.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing that the state whistleblower provisions were both expressly and impliedly pre empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 19782 (ADA) and the Whistleblower Protection Program (the Program or WPP) of the Wendell H. The District Court agreed that Botz's claims were pre empted and granted Omni's motion to dismiss. Is codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C. Botz was again assigned the Alaska to Japan round trip. She was unable to reach him. Botz met with Omni representatives who informed her that her refusal was grounds for termination. Refusing the flight assignment and for reporting to Omni what she suspected3 was a violation of the FAR. Our task is to determine whether the ADA. The key feature of the ADA is its pre emption provision. Or service of an air carrier . . . . 49 U.S.C. з 41713(b)(1) (1994).4 The ADA also includes a savings clause:
	OPINION/ORDER Kattke told Stone that his salary requirement was $300. No formal agreement was in place and no formal agreement was expected for several months. Believing he was already slated for it. The record is clear that no formal offer for the RVP position was made. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 * the law will not impose the burdensome obligation of employment on an employer. Ruzicka is distinguishable because the conflict between Ruzicka's claim of a clear promise and the Conde Nast's claim no clear promise was made raised a material question of fact not suitable for summary judgment disposition. There is no conflict about whether IOF clearly promised Kattke the RVP position because Kattke himself does not claim that IOF clearly and definitely offered him the RVP position. Removing oneself from an active job market is insufficient to show detrimental reliance. Kattke was able to find a replacement position with Met Life at a substantially higher salary.
	OPINION/ORDER I. BACKGROUND WFM is a Nebraska corporation which is the trustee for several trusts. The Evergreen Trust was assessed with personal property tax in Cherry County. New distress warrants were subsequently issued. The taxes were finally collected. WFM theorizes that the taxes should have been struck from the tax rolls following their inclusion on the county treasurer's list. Any collection of these taxes thereafter was unlawful. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 2 After the district court's order dismissing the constitutional claims (but while the remaining RICO claims were still pending). The district court reasoned that WFM was barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion from relitigating in federal court the issue of whether the county had unlawfully collected taxes. The due process issue is disposed of by McKesson Corp. v. We also agree that WFM has not established a class from whom it was treated disparately. With regard to the remaining RICO claims which were dismissed at the summary judgment stage.
	OPINION/ORDER The
	OPINION/ORDER Missouri Sheriff's Department was dispatched to a residence regarding a domestic assault in progress involving a weapon. Rebecca advised that Abernathy was on the front porch. Abernathy was arrested. Abernathy proceeded to trial and was convicted. Abernathy advances four arguments: (1) the jury should have determined whether he had three previous violent felonies as defined in з 924(e). (2) there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the shotgun. (3) there was insufficient evidence of a connection between the firearm and interstate commerce. We will address each argument seriatim. 18 U.S.C. з 924(e) states. Abernathy first argues his status as a recidivist with three previous violent offenses under 18 U.S.C. з 924(e) should have been submitted to the jury as an element of the offense under Apprendi v. Nor did he object to the instructions that were given to the jury. Is limited to plain error. Abernathy's argument fails because this issue is not an element of the offense. Is instead a sentencing matter under Almendarez Torres v.
	OPINION/ORDER In which the District Court agreed with defendants that the action was time barred. We agree that the action is time barred. (1) Stangel's conclusory assertion that he established issues of material fact is not properly before us. Neither is his continuous representation argument. 1212 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding that an unargued assertion of error is no more helpful to appellate court than unsupported allegation of fact is to trial court). The alleged concealed information was not knowledge that he had to have before
	OPINION/ORDER The jury verdicts were based upon the death of Donald Sayers. Whose body was found in the trunk of a burned out car. They were approached by Richard. Richard told the officers that Ruth was at her mother's. While one of the officers was speaking to Ruth. Still upset and saying he was going to beat up Sayers. After the fire was extinguished. Sayers's body was found in the trunk of the car. The medical examiner concluded that the cause of death was smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning due to an automobile fire. Murder in the first degree is defined to include
	OPINION/ORDER Jones was found guilty by a jury of the three counts in the indictment: two counts of felony possession of a firearm and one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm. He was sentenced to 327 months imprisonment on each of the felon in possession counts and 60 months on the false statement count. Jones was arrested at an Amoco Quick Store in Columbia by Columbia Police Officer Ben White.3 Jones was not immediately read his Miranda rights. Was transported to the police station in a squad car. Arrest was the result of drug purchases that Officer Candy Cornman made from Jones in her undercover capacity. 3 2 testified that at the police station Jones was processed. Jones admitted that the Columbia Police had seized his gun during an earlier incident and that he knew that he was not supposed to have a gun. Arguing that he had not been read his Miranda rights until after his conversation with Officer White was almost over. The district court denied the motion to suppress and Officer White was permitted to testify at trial about the arrest and subsequent statements of Jones.
	OPINION/ORDER This is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 4 99 201 of the Arkansas Code by the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas and Larry Wayland. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as the NFBA. Sitting by designation. * call to an Arkansas resident to solicit a charitable contribution or to offer any commercial product or service must identify the caller and the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. That provision is not at issue. The challenge is to the following subsection: (2) If the person receiving the telephone call indicates that he or she does not want to hear about the charity. A violation of subsection (a)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor and an unfair and deceptive act or practice for purposes of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NFBA plaintiffs are an Arkansas charity that solicits contributions and a blind individual who wishes to be solicited without government interference. Concluding that the statute is constitutional on its face. The State argues that the NFBA's First Amendment claims were properly dismissed because subsection (a)(2)
	OPINION/ORDER The Board ordered that King Soopers abide the terms of its existing collective bargaining agreements with the Unions and to make the employees whole for any losses they may have suffered from Kings Soopers' failure to apply the collective bargaining agreement to Store #86. I. The following findings of fact by the Board are largely undisputed by the parties and are supported by the substantial weight of the evidence. Many of the stores are unionized. Both Unions have had longstanding bargaining relationships in multi store bargaining units covering all company stores located within the Denver metropolitan area. Which was located in a facility at 120th Avenue in Broomfield. Was established in 1987. It was King Soopers' first and only store in Broomfield. Shortly after the store was established. With a recognition provision that specified that the Union was the representative for all grocery and delicatessen employees at
	OPINION/ORDER All the offenses are based upon the government's allegation that defendants defrauded various pharmaceutical sellers into granting substantial discounts by misrepresenting that defendants were purchasing for the
	OPINION/ORDER We have twice before heard appeals in this case. Jeffrey Gorman now appeals the district court's posttrial ruling that punitive damages are not available under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disability Act. Gorman and a friend were in the Westport area of Kansas City. The officers were off duty and working as private security for Westport. Was told to wait until he got to the station. Which would have permitted Gorman's transportation in his chair. The officers were unable to fold the wheelchair. Gorman testified that his body swayed with every turn Almost every element of what happened that night was contested by the defendants. Whose testimony was that Gorman did not instruct the officers how to transport him. Was thoroughly drunk and belligerent. Gorman admitted that he released his seatbelt out of concern over the pressure it was placing on his urine bag. Gorman was booked. He was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor trespass. Expert testimony suggested that these injuries and the resulting pain are permanent.
	OPINION/ORDER The discipline was imposed as a result of some of McLin's comments during a workshop on police brutality and racism. Tobacco chewing white police officers
	OPINION/ORDER The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based on 18 U.S.C. з 3231. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based on 18 U.S.C. з 3731. The government's notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Keeney was convicted in state court of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Keeney was sentenced to a term of imprisonment followed by probation. Keeney was released from probation on March 29. Or other dangerous weapon while defendant is on probation.
	OPINION/ORDER Hanson was later convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. з 844(i) (1998). The issues before us are whether Hanson was in custody when he was interrogated by federal agents about the attempted arson. We hold that Hanson was in custody. Reverse his conviction because his confession is inadmissible against him. The agents explained that they were investigating recent vandalism at the abortion clinic and wanted to show Hanson photos of the clinic. The agents did not tell Hanson that he was the prime suspect in their investigation of the arson attempt that had occurred eight months earlier.1 Hanson agreed to accompany them to the field office. He was with the agents for at least three hours in total.5 There is no video or audio record of their conversation. 1 2 3 Suppression Hearing Transcript at 30 31. There is no dispute in the record as to whether the back seat door was locked. The only variance in the record is whether it was locked by a child safety mechanism or an automatic lock that activated once the vehicle was in gear.
	OPINION/ORDER Arrington was arrested in Hennepin County. A shotgun was found in the hatchback. Arrington was charged with felony firearm possession and fleeing police. At the police station he was advised of his Miranda rights. Was represented throughout the course of the state proceedings. Arrington pleaded guilty to the charge of fleeing police and the firearm charge was dropped. A jury convicted Arrington on the federal charge and he was sentenced to 77 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Arrington first contends his statement to the ATF agent was taken in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and should have been suppressed under Edwards v. He 'is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him. Or whether the same or different law enforcement authorities are involved in the second investigation. When Arrington was arrested on state charges. He validly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel and that right was scrupulously honored throughout the state proceedings.
	OPINION/ORDER Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. з 1343. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background KWMU is a not for profit public broadcast radio station located on the campus of the University of Missouri at St. KWMU is owned and operated by The Curators of the University of Missouri. Is responsible for overseeing KWMU's operation. Contributors of such funds are referred to as
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Walker increased security and began conducting regular checks of the units to ensure that unrented units were empty and that rented units were locked. 1. Walker noticed that the lock on the J 11 unit was missing. He suspected a burglary was in progress. They found that the lock was missing and that the remaining contents were in disarray. While the officers were still at The Storage Center. He stated that he was smoking crack cocaine at Joe 3 Wingate's house on May 17. Someone suggested 1 These items were the bases for the first six counts of the indictment against Mr. Hopkins had a driver's license and was asked to drive the truck. They loaded duffel bags and other items in the truck until it was full. He conducted a preliminary test and determined that the firearms recovered from the U Haul were fully automatic machineguns. Who was familiar with World War II machineguns. Hopkins stated the lock may have been missing or open on unit J ll. The storage unit may have contained AR 15s that had been converted into M16 machineguns.
	OPINION/ORDER Kenneth Shearer was convicted of dealing in display fireworks without a license issued by the Bureau of Alcohol. Kenneth Shearer was the owner and operator of All American Professional Fireworks (
	OPINION/ORDER The CHA notified its employees that it was closing the department. Rejecting its argument that the CHA was not a covered employer for purposes of the Act. Like the CHA is subject to the WARN Act.2 The CHA also 1 Plaintiffs represent a class of
	OPINION/ORDER White was on probation and under supervision by the Marion County. White had informed his probation officer that he was residing alone in Indianapolis. He was the sole lessee and the named electrical service subscriber for the residence. Such a search was conducted on October 18. The identities of these two persons were never ascertained by officer Elder. White told Elder that the east bedroom was his. Numerous Indianapolis Star customer invoice forms were found. That they were not his. He also indicated that he believed he could have weapons in his house. Both parties stipulated that White was a convicted felon and that the weapons in question had traveled in interstate commerce. The only issue for trial was No. 03 2549 3 whether White. To suggest the inference that if the documents were White's. Because they were found in the bedroom dresser. Then the other items in the dresser were also White's. The prosecution proffered the following facts to show that the Star documents were White's: (1) White worked at the Indianapolis Star newspaper from March to July of 2002.
	OPINION/ORDER The test cell area is quite noisy. As a result employees are required to wear earplugs and must stand in close proximity to one another to converse. One of Mattson's supervisors in the test cell area was production supervisor Beth Cone. Cone was responsible for contacting electricians like Mattson whenever there were maintenance problems. Mattson and senior electrician Paul Hart were generally uncooperative when contacted by Cone. Mattson and Hart left a test cell unattended when they were in the process of repairing it. Hart was subsequently transferred. Mattson and two coworkers told a maintenance manager that they were concerned about physical contact with Cone. Mattson stated that he did not know whether Cone had touched him in a suggestive way and that he did not believe that she was attracted to him. Mattson further stated that the contact No. 03 2495 3 may have been inadvertent. White concluded that Mattson's complaint was without merit. Hollis further stated that Mattson had told him that Mattson's goal was to get Cone
	OPINION/ORDER Dirk Jones was charged in two counts of a three count indictment arising from the purchase and attempted resale of a firearm. Rock was a frequent customer at Westforth's. Nevertheless argued in closing that Jones was the second man in the store. Jones admits that this time he was with Rock. Store surveillance cameras recorded the entire time the two men were at Westforth's. There was no testimony about what Jones said while in the store. Once the sale was completed. The ATF agents testified that they believed Rock was trying to remove the rifle from the trunk. Jones was indicted along with Rock. So Jones was tried alone. Rock was subsequently located. The government's theory of the case was that Rock had an ongoing relationship with a man in Chicago named
	OPINION/ORDER Which are known also as
	OPINION/ORDER That the withheld documents were exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(5) pursuant to the so called deliberative process privilege. Asserting that the withheld documents relate to actions that are beyond the scope of the EPA's statutory authority and that the deliberative process privilege does not exempt from disclosure materials relating to such ultra vires conduct. The United States undertook to freeze and ultimately to reduce the production and use of chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals that have a deleterious effect on the stratospheric ozone layer. The EPA was to take the lead in establishing programs. The EPA was to promulgate rules prohibiting the replacement of any ODS with an alternative that itself poses a danger to human health or the environment. So long as the EPA has identified another substitute that reduces the potential risk to human health and the environment and is currently or potentially available. з 7671k(c). The EPA was to develop a list of substances that are
	OPINION/ORDER Two codefendants were charged with conspiring to unlawfully transport firearms in interstate commerce. Wren and Yarbor were both sentenced to terms of 60 months. Their appeals have been consolidated for our consideration. 2 Nos. 03 2199 & 03 2232 We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. He testified at trial that Yarbor and Rowe told him about their activities and asked if he was interested in joining them in exchange for a share of the profits. He was. Rowe told Wren that Sangster was his brother. That Sangster would soon be taking over for Rowe because Rowe was about to go to jail himself. After this trip Rowe was incarcerated. Because Sangster was a convicted felon he could not fill out the ATF forms using his own name. The forms were presented to Wren. Was recovered in connection with a murder investigation in Florida. His last trip was in November 1996. Two of the other women who were straw purchasers Paulette Hayes and Rosie Ammus testified at trial. When his residence was raided a second time.
	OPINION/ORDER Were disposed of through dismissals.
	OPINION/ORDER Darryl Morris was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 922(g) and was sentenced to fifty seven months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Morris further asserts that even if the evidence was properly admitted. It was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict. A search warrant was issued for the residence located at 1225 East Ash Street in Springfield. The warrant was based upon two informants' tips that drugs were being sold from the residence. The informants' tips were corroborated by evidence removed from trash cans outside of the residence. Another officer checked the front room to ensure it was unoccupied and then dropped a
	OPINION/ORDER Are essentially undisputed. Steve Wentland were drinking at Moore's house. Who was seated in the front. Who was driving. After Wentland was down. Where they awoke Conner's employer and were given access to a warehouse. He was apprehended in Texas on No. 03 1951 3 January 30. The penalty phase hearing was held on October 9. Including that his confession was improperly admitted because it was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Which under Indiana law is a remedy limited to issues not known at trial or not available on direct appeal. Including: (1) his confession was obtained through manipulation. Was therefore improperly admitted at trial. (3) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. Legal Standards A federal court may grant habeas relief only if the petitioner demonstrates that he is in custody
	OPINION/ORDER Among the terms of his probation was a requirement that he report to his probation officer
	OPINION/ORDER Question 9(b) of Form 4473 asks whether the firearms purchaser is currently under indictment or information for any crime punishable by a prison term in excess of one year. As a result Lawton was not able to complete the purchase. Contending that his failure to disclose the criminal informations was inadvertent. The court reasoned that
	OPINION/ORDER He was uninsured. Bowman was arrested and searched in preparation for transport to the police station. Who was out of the squad car and standing behind Bowman and the arresting officer to secure the scene. Who testified they too saw the arrest and no gun was recovered from Bowman. We will relate additional facts as necessary to address Bowman's arguments on appeal. None have merit. The thumbprint was recovered from the gun slide and the palm print was found on the gun handle. The government then asked Canty whether the location of the thumbprint was consistent with someone making the gun
	OPINION/ORDER Merritt seeks to have his conviction for possession of firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. з 922(g)(1) (2000) overturned for any of the following three reasons. He asserts that the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained during a search of his home pursuant to a warrant (later determined to lack sufficient probable cause to issue). Merritt argues that the jury's verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. He challenges whether his sentence is proper because the district court considered relevant conduct only proven by a preponderance of the evidence. A substance which accelerates the intensity and rate at which a fire spreads was found in several areas of the club. No signs of forced entry were found. Merritt and his two sons were the only persons with keys to the club. This equipment was later found on January 4. No. 02 4211 3 An affidavit and application for a search warrant were submitted on January 22. The search warrant was executed on January 23. After Merritt informed Agent Vergon that the items in the vault were not his and that he could not gain entry.
	OPINION/ORDER Having determined that Officer Edinburg's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. Facts Rodney Edinburg was a police officer employed by the Village of Glenwood. Officer Edinburg was off duty and driving his personal car. Officer Edinburg learned that an individual had entered his car and was trying to steal it. The perpetrator was Phillip Scott. The plaintiffs have not argued either in their initial or reply brief that the grant of summary judgment on the state claims should be reversed. We address the only issue asserted on appeal: whether summary judgment on the з 1983 claim was appropriate. Which was either searching for something or perhaps turning the ignition. So that Officer Edinburg was forced to run backward to avoid being hit. Scott was looking over his shoulder at Officer Edinburg as the vehicle backed up. The exact instant that the first shot was fired is unclear. After the first shot was fired. Officer Edinburg stated that he noticed two individuals in the direct path of the car and that people were moving.
	OPINION/ORDER The petition for rehearing was granted. Was withdrawn. The present amended opinion is substituted. 2 No. 02 4015 ered the prohibited firearm. The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter 1 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food.
	OPINION/ORDER The purpose of the search warrant was to search for drugs (specifically. Anderson testified that the footsteps did not sound as if they were getting closer to the door and he could not discern whether they were moving from left to right or right to left. Anderson later testified that he did not believe three to five seconds was sufficient time for the footsteps to reach the entry door. The footsteps Anderson heard appear to have been made by 13 year old Tryphenia Sykes. Tryphenia is the daughter No. 02 4015 1 3 of Gillaum's wife. Tryphenia testified that she was eating breakfast and watching television when she heard a knock on the door and someone say something. Gillaum was handcuffed. Members of the task force learned that Gillaum was diabetic. Gillaum was asked if he was experiencing any medical problems and was told if he was having problems to let someone know. Gillaum was also asked if he needed any food. Gillaum indicated that he was all right and did not need any food. Greiber asked Gillaum if he was familiar with the warnings.
	OPINION/ORDER Arguing first that the evidence was insufficient to prove he provided any consideration for the alleged murder for hire. Richeson was arrested and charged in Indiana state court with the murder of Brant Martin. Mucha was released after giving his statement. Koonce was taken into custody on unrelated charges and placed in Lake County Jail. Richeson knew that the state's case against him was strong. Decided that the best way to defeat the charges was to have witnesses Koonce and Mucha killed. Since Koonce was in custody. Richeson thought killing him was not feasible. Richeson asked him if he was still in on the plan. The second of the two letters was written in a crude code which was supposed to be read using the
	OPINION/ORDER Was the site of a combustible criminal conspiracy that raged for a period of years. It is a wonder that there was anything left standing in the area when the ashes finally settled. The story is as follows: Late in 1990 or January of 1991. The opening of Joe's Company Store was bad news to its competition. Which was located across the street from Joe's. The fire was started by John W. The gasoline was then followed by a lit road flare. Johnson's Red Fox was leveled by the fire and the insurance company paid the owners approximately $800. J&J's was destroyed by fire. While separate investigations by the State Fire Marshall's Office and the insurance company were unable to determine the cause of the fire. Showed that Rogers and Danny Dennison were paid $500 to burn the store. The balance was used for
	OPINION/ORDER (Citizens of the state in which a diversity suit is brought cannot remove. 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b).). The district court ruled that the only amount in controversy was the fee. Which was less than the minimum amount required for a diversity suit in federal court. Her appeal from that decision is pending in the Illinois Appellate Court. The court refused on the ground that the theory on which the defendants had based their removal of the case was. The cases are pretty much at one in holding that the plaintiff must show that the remand order was correct (that is. That removal was improper). Need not show that the removal was in bad faith. Provided removal was improper. The plaintiff is presumptively entitled to an award of fees. It is true that the normal feeshifting statute does not entitle a party to an award of attorney's fees merely for prevailing on a preliminary ruling. It is also true that a remand order is preliminary to the decision of the case on the merits. The entitlement is not automatic the presumption is not irrebuttable and we 4 No. 02 3240 do not think the district judge committed an abuse of discretion in denying Sirotzky her fees.
	OPINION/ORDER Shot and killed Montalvo while he was standing outside a house in Aurora. Contreras agreed to testify against Buckner and Simental (who were tried separately). He was sentenced to a prison term of 60 years. Arguing that he was denied a fair trial when the State suppressed information he could have used to further impeach Contreras. Contreras was the government's star witness. The MLD was a gang of about 50 members that engaged in
	OPINION/ORDER Hite was charged by indictment with possession of an unregistered short barreled rifle. Was convicted on both counts and sentenced to fifty seven months in prison. Hite raises two evidentiary issues: (1) whether the defendant's ex girlfriend should have been allowed to testify at trial that Hite placed a bullet in the chamber of a revolver. The defendant was on probation in Coles County. The defendant was living with his grandmother. Officer Baumunk accompanied Hite to the bedroom that Hite was occupying at the time. Officer Baumunk inquired as to whether there was any other contraband in the room. Claimed there was no other contraband in the room. The firearms were located inside a backpack. The first firearm was described as a
	OPINION/ORDER No written agreement was reached. Some remnants of this litigation were still ongoing. Zelinski was at a bowling pro shop and discovered a Pin Breaker box that he didn't recognize. The design of the Pin Breaker logo was different. The ball in the box was a low quality Columbia second. Zelinski investigated and found out that Columbia was behind the Pin Breaker box and had proceeded full steam ahead with producing balls under the Pin Breaker name. Columbia even told Kwon not to contact Zelinski because it was in charge of the Pin Breaker line. 4 Nos. 02 2431 & 02 2574 Around the time of Zelinski's investigation. It was a big one the district court eliminated the punitive damages award.
	OPINION/ORDER Which was based on the book. On the theory that one particular character easily identifiable as himself (played by Keanu Reeves) was portrayed in a negative way. It relied not only on Illinois substantive law (which was proper). Also on Illinois pleading rules (which was not). Both these neighborhoods were among Chicago's poorest. Muzikowski and his work have been featured nationally on programs such as ABC's Nightline. The end result was Hardball: A Season in the Projects. Prominent among those coaches is Muzikowski. Sprinkled throughout the book are passages mentioning Muzikowski and various personal details about No. 01 4314 3 Muzikowski's life. No character in the movie is named Robert or Muzikowski and there are no references to Little League Baseball.
	OPINION/ORDER 2002 is amended as follows. The state of Wisconsin has received over one hundred complaints that distributors were selling tobacco at a statutorily proscribed cost. All of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be. The same is.
	OPINION/ORDER Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice
	OPINION/ORDER No. 01 3315 This is the second time that Stein's claim for benefits. When the mine was closed and abandoned. He filed for black lung benefits after his respiratory ailments became so debilitating that he was unable to continue working as a carpenter. Noting that
	OPINION/ORDER The question is whether a district court may transfer the determination of costs allowed under FED. P. 54(d) for a prevailing defendant to a state court that has before it certain state law claims that were originally part of the federal suit. We conclude that the answer is no. Eleven year old Ryan Harris was murdered. A month after charges were brought against the boys. The charges were dropped. The parties known here as Mother and Father (their true names are available to the court but under seal. Despite the fact that many of the underlying facts were likely to be identical. Discovery was duplicative and costly. Nearly two years after the original complaints were filed in federal and state court. Although M&F have cast that issue in jurisdictional terms. That much at least is easy to reject. That the federal claims have now been dismissed with prejudice. That is enough to create a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. What they are really arguing is that we should rule against the City with dispatch because it has waived its claim to costs under FED.
	OPINION/ORDER The ALJ applied the standard we set out and again concluded that Goodloe was entitled to benefits. I. We will assume familiarity with our earlier opinion and will repeat only those facts necessary to the disposition of this successive appeal. Goodloe was entitled to an interim presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis (commonly known as black lung disease) if he could meet any of the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. з 727.203(a). The only criterion at issue at this point in the proceedings is subsection (a)(3). That a miner will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if he can demonstrate the following medical condition by a preponderance of the evidence: Blood gas studies which demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lung alveoli to the blood as indicated by values which are equal to or less than the values specified [in an attached table]. 20 C.F.R. з 727.203(a)(3). The 1979 study produced non qualifying results but the 1984 study was well within the qualifying range.
	OPINION/ORDER 2002 is hereby amended. After the first full paragraph: We are not asking ATF to identify a specific instance in which the release of information has interfered with enforcement proceedings we concede that this would be impossible. Robbins Tire makes clear that a showing of specific instances of interference is not required. 437 U.S. at 236. These predictions are not No. 01 2167 Page 2 reasonable. No judge in active service has requested a vote thereon and all of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing.
	OPINION/ORDER This is the second time this court has had to review a decision rejecting Hugo Diaz's application for benefits under his company's group insurance long term disability plan (the