 |
NIPPER V. SMITH
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="949"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="931"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order denying defendant ARCO Chemical Company's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="889"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0741p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Ortiz's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. 000 voters) were slated to be purged from Philadelphia's registration rolls for failing to vote. No appeal was taken. This request was denied by order of the district court on October 6. Ortiz's appeals were dismissed for failure to prosecute. A four day trial was held to determine whether a permanent injunction should issue. Recognizing that African American and Latino voters are purged at disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts. A. A district court's conclusion that a challenged electoral practice has a discriminatory effect is a question of fact subject to review for clear error. 79 (1986) (recognizing that determination of whether or not political process is equally open to minority voters
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="886"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B878DF6D6261E8F88256F9C00008543/$file/9999018o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nelson have so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 1315 1316 WILLIAMS v. The panel cleared the way for attorneys
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="886"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR>
Reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> GE is the parent company of General Electric Capital Services (GECS). Within GECC is the Retail Financial Services unit (RFS). It was renamed Montgomery Ward Credit Services. Who was born on March 7. Thiessen was placed on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="881"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/951554P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These defendants are Jesse Rouse. Who was acquitted by the jury. The children are referred to by initials in the text of this The jury acquitted the defendants of the remaining charges. The appellants raise twelve allegations of error in the trial of the case.1 We grant relief on two issues: (1) refusal to allow expert opinion testimony by a court appointed psychologist that the children's evidence and testimony became tainted by suggestive influences to which the children were subject in the investigation and trial. 11) whether the defendants were denied due process right to fair trial when the Department of Social Services. The appellants are entitled to a new trial on these grounds. Sufficiency of the evidence is not an issue. An examination of the record establishes that the medical evidence was inconclusive as to abuse or abuse by the defendants and that the children's reports of abuse may have been tainted by the influence of social workers and law enforcement officials who investigated and prepared the government's case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="879"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE1NDZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1546_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Singh was convicted of health care fraud. Structure of the Practice Singh was a physician. The Practice was located on the first floor of Albany Memorial Hospital (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1001.html">MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE, INC V. MONSANTO COMPANY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="874"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR>
Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1447.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 50. Delete the sentence that starts with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-6365.ma3.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (7/21/2000, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="868"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death for murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). Jarrell has said he thought Petitioner was joking. Petitioner warned Jarrell that Shuler was going to cause them trouble and stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314400.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which Ochoa is a criminal defendant. Sitting by designation. 2 is an intervenor. I. BACKGROUND In the 1980s Ochoa was a high ranking member of the Medellín drug cartel based out of Medellín. Was released in 1997. He was extradited to this country in 2001. Ochoa was cash poor and land rich. Ochoa sought to admit evidence at trial about an illegal scheme called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1329.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc.</SPAN> were on brief. Gray</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0872p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a final judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 30. Was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. He contends that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) the district court failed to inquire properly into whether premature jury deliberations prejudiced him. (2) the district court's calculation of the loss under the fraud guideline is not supported by the record. Bertoli urges that if the case is remanded. We will affirm the judgment of conviction but we will vacate the sentence. Therefore we will remand the matter to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this Opinion. Much of the substantive conduct described at the trial is not generally relevant to this appeal. Certain evidence is evidence of conduct underlying Counts One and Two. Bertoli and his co conspirators were charged with unlawfully manipulating the prices of certain stocks. Who was an analyst at the firm of Wood Gundy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Judge Butzner wrote a dissenting opinion. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 BELL v. Bell was convicted by a jury in North Carolina of fifty eight counts of sexual misconduct comprised of eight counts of first degree rape. Because Bell's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed after the April 24. 1602 (2000). 2 The record indicates that twenty seven additional counts were dismissed during the course of the trial. 1 BELL v. When Wendy was awakened on a Saturday morning by Bell. Wendy was twelve years old and in the sixth grade. Bell was fiftyfive years old. The threat was effective. While his wife was sleeping or at work. Both of whom lived nearby and were friends of Wendy. Toni also testified that she was present at Bell's home on one occasion when he sexually molested Wendy. Toni was eleven years old when the abuse began. Bell's wife was cooking dinner and Vicki. Vicki was twelve years old. JARVIS hoping Bell would leave Wendy alone if Vicki was present.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3211a.html">USA V. EDMOND<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="851"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rehearing en banc on the witness exclusion issue of Michael Rhynes is granted. Parts IV and XVI (only insofar as Part XVI relates to Part IV) of the published majority opinion filed 10/26/99 are vacated. Lines 11 12 the counsel listing is corrected to add
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="851"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1487.html">LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION V. MATSUSHITA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974466.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="841"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="841"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="841"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-5317.man.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Freund v. The State did not have a strong case against the petitioner: all physical evidence pointed to the co defendant. The only testimony directly identifying the petitioner as the murderer was that of a witness with serious credibility problems. Information that could have been used against him in a blameshifting defense for the petitioner. Would have made such disclosure unethical.<p> Compounding this conflict were allegations by the opposing defendant in open court that his relationship with the law firm ran deeper than that of attorney and client. If the law firm chose to present a defense of the petitioner that was antagonistic to their former client. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. Is now serving a life sentence. The other defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and is now a free man.<p> More disturbing to this court than the unethical behavior of the lawyers who represented the petitioner is the fact that this case has made its way to our docket.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="838"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3268.htm">97-3268 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 02/22/2000<BR></A><BR>
(6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he committed felony murder as defined by 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="831"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to consider the standard for employer liability for retaliation in violation of Title VII. Which asserted that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Because there was no evidence adduced at trial that the board either took part in retaliatory actions or that the board
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="831"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-11126.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RICHARDSON (11/3/2000, NO. 99-11126)<BR></A><BR>
The Indictment was based upon allegations that between 1986 and 1996. Richardson was found guilty on thirty eight counts<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="831"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0127p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's conviction was vacated in 2000 after DNA tests established that the sole physical evidence linking Plaintiff to either of the crime scenes several hairs could not have come from Plaintiff. All charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on August 25. Was awakened by an unknown. Page 3 determined was Vaseline. Police were called to the area. Told Plaintiff that they were investigating an incident unrelated to Mrs. Were allowed to search Plaintiff's apartment. V had seen Plaintiff at the apartment complex and was now sure that he was her assailant. Clark was presumably referring to Mrs. Noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="831"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-11126.man.html">UNITED STATES V. RICHARDSON (11/3/2000, NO. 99-11126)<BR></A><BR>
The Indictment was based upon allegations that between 1986 and 1996. Richardson was found guilty on thirty eight counts<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 3002 days before the representative plaintiff's charge is filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We conclude the proper forward cutoff date is the date of filing of the representative charge. We will use the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. We will use the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1185.html">BALDWIN HARDWARE V. FRANKSU ENTERPRISE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0104n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts are amply presented in the Ohio Court of Appeals decision. Are incorporated by reference here. Petitioner Edward Urban operated a family medical practice and was licensed to treat persons covered by Medicaid. He was charged with Medicaid fraud under Ohio Rev. For billing for services provided by an LPN that were not payable under Medicaid unless provided by a physician. Urban was also charged with tampering with evidence in violation of Ohio Rev. Urban was convicted by a jury of two counts of felony Medicaid fraud. Urban was originally sentenced on January 25. Was granted a modification of sentence on November 5. An application for writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner shall not be granted unless the state court decision
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1286p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question of the degree of jury unanimity required by the CCE statute is a difficult one. Other courts of appeals have disagreed with Echeverri's resolution. We must also decide whether the district court's failure to give the proper unanimity instruction was harmless error. These convictions do not themselves show unanimous agreement that the same three violations were sufficiently related to each other to constitute a continuing series. The evidence that the jury must have credited to find Edmonds guilty of the predicate violations unequivocally established that all charged violations were related. No rational jury could unanimously find Edmonds guilty of the predicate offenses without unanimously finding that the offenses were related to each other. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are fully set out in the earlier panel opinion. The organization was based in Los Angeles. ] that in some way he was causing or attempting to cause the distribution of cocaine and heroin as charged in Count 1 of the indictment or in other counts charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-4184.htm">98-4184 -- MATTHEWS V. C.E.C. INDUSTRIES CORP. -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR>
Was corrected by the trial judge as he cross examined Matthews. . <u>Id.</u> Leedy's nose was bleeding during this time. <u>Id.</u> at 69. His nose was bleeding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032372p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL T. We will reverse and remand for an appropriate due process analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § FILED U.S. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/003297.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's order for a new trial. Because the issues of liability and damages were so intertwined as to make a fair trial on damages alone impossible. We will reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues. S 1983 alleging that he was subjected to excessive use of for ce on September 15 and 27. Pryer was in the prison exercise yard when he began arguing and fighting with another inmate. Then transferred him to the Restricted Housing Unit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1568.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
King with whom Fenn & King was on brief for appellant. King with whom Fenn & King was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for whom Richard S. Was on brief for appellee. appellee. Levasseur and Manning were fugitives. Which is the principal focus of the present appeal as well.* II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Petitioner challenges the dismissal of the section 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner was required to demon strate to the district court. An evidentiary hearing is not required where the section 2255 petition. The record evidence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-8983.man.html">WILLIAMS V. HEAD (8/26/1999, NO. 97-8983)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. <EM>See Williams v. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one.</P> <P> In our previous opinion we affirmed the denial of habeas relief to Williams as to all but one of the claims relating to his conviction and sentence. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed <EM>if</EM> the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. <EM>See Williams v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="823"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978983.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alexander Williams is a Georgia death row inmate. We have previously addressed and disposed of most of his appeal from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Assuming familiarity with that opinion we will not duplicate everything said there. We will set the stage for this opinion by summarizing briefly what we did in the earlier one. The sole exception was Williams' claim that his trial counsel. That claim was first raised by another attorney. The principal thrust of his argument is the ineffective assistance claim relating to the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the sentence stage. That his claim that trial counsel Collins rendered ineffective assistance regarding mitigating circumstances cannot succeed if the only evidence considered is that which attorney Allen presented to support that claim in the new trial hearing. Williams' present counsel have brought forward a substantial amount of new evidence which they say should have been considered by the district court in deciding whether trial counsel Collins was ineffective at the sentence stage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="821"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/91-7185.html">JACKSON V. HERRING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jackson v. Was convicted in 1981 of murdering a neighbor during an argument. She was sentenced to death. The court held that the jury that convicted Jackson was unconstitutionally comprised because the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from service on her jury. The court further held that Jackson overcame her procedural default on this claim by showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at trial. The court also held that Jackson was entitled to guilt phase relief on the alternative independent ground of her counsel's ineffectiveness at trial for failure to object to the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes. <i>Id.</i><p> The court thus granted guilt phase habeas relief on both grounds. <i>Id.</i> at 1561 62. The court additionally granted relief on Jackson's claim that her counsel was constitutionally ineffective at sentencing phase for failing to present any mitigating evidence. <i>Id.</i> at 1562.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="821"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/91-7185.html">JACKSON V. HERRING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jackson v. Was convicted in 1981 of murdering a neighbor during an argument. She was sentenced to death. The court held that the jury that convicted Jackson was unconstitutionally comprised because the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from service on her jury. The court further held that Jackson overcame her procedural default on this claim by showing that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at trial. The court also held that Jackson was entitled to guilt phase relief on the alternative independent ground of her counsel's ineffectiveness at trial for failure to object to the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes. <i>Id.</i><p> The court thus granted guilt phase habeas relief on both grounds. <i>Id.</i> at 1561 62. The court additionally granted relief on Jackson's claim that her counsel was constitutionally ineffective at sentencing phase for failing to present any mitigating evidence. <i>Id.</i> at 1562.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36EC4906BDB2B87288256E5A00707A51/$file/9835795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="816"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7C507B5B69F97AB882569F400609101/$file/9835795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/019009p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alternatively held that the claim was without merit. We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for issuance of the writ conditioned upon the Commonwealth's right to conduct a retrial. Who was wanted for sentencing on several drug related convictions and had become a suspect in the murder. Holloway was a middleman who supplied heroin to Baker. Johnson came to believe that Caldwell was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="808"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-3309.wpd.html">WOLFGANG V. MID-AMERICA MOTORSPORTS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
The practice session was in preparation for races scheduled for April 4 and 5. The races were promoted by Defendant R.E.D. Lakeside Speedway is owned by Defendant Mid America Motorsports. Wolfgang was knocked unconscious. While there were (1) Mr. Defendants have acquiesced in the judgment. The motion is DENIED. normally five to seven firefighters at Lakeside racing events. Only two firefighters were present when Mr. These two firefighters had never trained together and were unfamiliar with sprint car design. Some of their hand held fire extinguishers were not designed for use on a methanol fire. Wolfgang sat in his burning car for eight to ten minutes before other drivers were finally able to extricate him. He was airlifted to the University of Kansas Medical Center by helicopter. Racing were treated by stipulation as one entity. Lakeside and World of Outlaws were the only defendants at trial. Arguing that the Release was void and unenforceable on public policy grounds. It ruled that the Release was valid and enforceable as to Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="808"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993942P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 whether Hanes's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in preparation for trial.3 We affirm. Hanes admitted to being at the apartment at the time of the This is our characterization of the issue. The right to appeal is governed by the COA requirements found at 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Whether the habeas petition was filed in the district court pre or post AEDPA. Claimed that Sprouse committed the murder while Hanes was waiting outside the front door to discuss a business deal with Barlow and that he did not know what Sprouse used to kill Barlow. The key evidence against Hanes was police testimony that he told police that Energine was used to kill Barlow. 4 and that only after Hanes provided this information were the police able to determine the exact cause of death. Because Hanes's habeas petition was filed in 1995 before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This appeal is subject to pre AEDPA standards of review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0195p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is clear that this extremely probative testimony requires that we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Where his opinion goes too far is in its accusations of fraud on the court. While his explanation for the omission of the Sultan deposition from the official record before the court is possible in the narrowest sense. Sultan's deposition was taken by trial counsel for respondent. Was not included with the evidence submitted as part of Bell's motion for summary judgment. A genuine mistake was made. One which was not realized until a different attorney looked at the case. To conclude otherwise is to disbelieve sworn testimony by an officer of the court. When in fact it was submitted to the panel prior to oral argument as part of the abeyance motion. We believe it is appropriate to use our inherent equitable powers to expand the record on appeal to consider the deposition. Where through error or accident material matters are omitted or misstated. While some circuit courts have held that Rule 10(e) allows the inclusion of material the district court did not consider.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/009005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114680.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was after this case was argued. We conclude that the district court's evidentiary rulings were neither an abuse of discretion. We reaffirm the basic principle that an appellate court must afford the district court's gatekeeping determinations
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="806"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></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-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA2C630A27DD09F882570A000823C36/$file/0316653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Circuit Judge: At a murder trial in which the central question is whether the defendant acted in self defense. Are a defendant's constitutional rights violated when spectators are permitted to wear buttons depicting the deceased individual? That the state court was objectively unreasonable in denying this claim both on direct appeal and in the post conviction proceedings. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Musladin was charged in a California state court with first degree murder for the killing of Tom Studer. There is no dispute that Musladin fired the shot that killed Studer. Although experts for both sides agree that the fatal shot was the result of a ricochet rather than a direct hit. There was no crime and. The buttons were several inches in diameter and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2718.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sullivan</SPAN> was on brief. Was allegedly harassed and forced to quit his job after he broke a code of silence by reporting a fellow officer's misconduct. The jury also found that Hickey was liable for tortious interference with Baron's contractual relationship with the Department but that the specific harassment claims against him were time barred. A jury instruction that did not identify a specific individual as the final policymaker who must have condoned the custom that violated Baron's civil rights. While Baron was on duty. Was playing cards with inmates in violation of the institution's policies. Curtis was suspended for three days as a result. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/013786.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is a medical malpractice case predicated on our diversity jurisdiction and brought under Pennsylvania law. Fried
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1330.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted by a jury on four counts of dispensing and distributing a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. 21 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7141a.html">CROCKER HOBART V. PIEDMONT AVIATION<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1001.html">UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS V. SHELL<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="790"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1031.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The caption on the coversheet should read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/022859p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Degree to Which the Expert Testifying Is Qualified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8. That there are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bockius LLP</U> were on the brief. Snyder LLP</U> were on the brief. Inc.</U> were on the brief.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="788"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962542.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are turkey growers. At which the Philsons were awarded $15. Were subsidiaries of Goldsboro Milling Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/98-6485.htm">98-6485 -- MACSENTI V. BECKER -- 01/22/2001<BR></A><BR>
Jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity of citizenship. (Hereinafter in this opinion we will use
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTM3MDNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-3703_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge) denying petitioner appellant's habeas petition from a state court conviction on the grounds that (1) the state high court's finding that the issue had not been preserved was an adequate procedural bar to preclude habeas review of petitioner appellant's claimed violation of his right to judicial supervision of his trial. (2) state high court's decision on petitioner appellant's claimed violation of his due process right to be present during his jury trial was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an October 28. Monroe claimed that his right to be present during his jury trial and his right to judicial supervision of his trial were violated when the trial judge allowed the jury to view evidence outside the presence of the judge and the parties while the trial was adjourned. We agree with the District Court that the New York Court of Appeals' rejection of Monroe's right to be present claim was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310513.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Florida prisoner on death row. Its history is quite complicated. Who was married to Charles von Maxcy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert J. Of counsel on the brief were Kevin R. With him on the brief were Michael J. Were diligent in reducing it to practice after. On cross appeal Clontech challenges three underlying partial summary judgments in favor of Invitrogen: (1) that the claims in suit are enabled. Reverse transcriptase (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct27/03-30987-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Before the court is the government's appeal from the district court's order granting defendant Richard Wall's Fed. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Wall was indicted on charges of conspiracy involving a scheme to defraud the state of Louisiana of the proper quality of steel for use in Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) road construction projects. Wall was the regional sales manager for Inland Steel Company. He was charged with one count of conspiracy. The LADOTD maintains a Qualified Products List (QPL) for products that have been tested and approved for use in highway and road construction in Louisiana. Was the only product approved for such use. Wall conspired with Caldwell's president Bill Lovelace and Caldwell's vice presidents Keith Wingfield and Don Gee to use a polymer coated steel product that was not approved by Louisiana. A stencil was applied to these steel coils indicating certain information about the steel. The parties dispute on appeal whether it was required by LADOTD that the name of the laminator be included on the stencil.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kentucky were conducting surveillance of Watford. Who was wanted in the State of Illinois on charges of murder and in the Central District of Illinois for violation of federal probation. Watford was also suspected of being involved in drug trafficking and maintaining a storage facility at which he stored between two and three kilograms of cocaine. The Marshals were warned that Watford likely would be armed with a 9mm handgun and wearing a bullet proof vest. They pulled over the yellow Toyota pick up truck in which Watford was riding as a passenger and arrested him without incident. When Hale later left his apartment and was confronted by police. Agents found 28 baggies that were later confirmed to contain 292.6 grams of crack cocaine. 000 in cash and a driver's license displaying Watford's photograph was also present in the apartment. Watford was not immediately charged in that district. Was instead removed to state custody in Illinois to stand trial on the unrelated murder charges. On the day the Indictment was returned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214941.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turner Murders his Wife and Joyce Brown The facts concerning the two murders largely are undisputed. Turner repeatedly arrived at Joyce's apartment asking to speak to his estranged Irene Hall also went by the nickname
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ricky Martin Luna were all arrested for conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The four defendants were part of a vast drug enterprise that brought large quantities of cocaine and marijuana into Nashville. They were convicted by a jury of these crimes and given sentences ranging from 210 months (Solorio) to 292 months (Juarez). Factual Background The defendants in this case were all part of a drug ring that bought. The leaders of this operation (which was based in Nashville) were Terrell McMurry and Timothy Booker. The first were Omar Rocha Rodriguez (known as Omar Rocha) and Adriana Rocha Espinoza (a woman who lived with Rocha).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/88-8935.man.html">WATERS V. THOMAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Waters v. As he was leaving the scene. Other details of the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Waters' guilt are set out in the opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Certiorari was denied. Which the district court denied in an extensive order.<p> A panel of this Court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief insofar as the convictions were concerned. The panel was unanimous in affirming the denial of guilt stage relief. Chief Judge Tjoflat dissented from the panel majority's holding that Waters was due sentence stage relief on ineffective assistance grounds. We agree with the panel's holding that Waters' guilt stage ineffective assistance of counsel claims are due to be denied because the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that Waters cannot show prejudice from any of the claimed shortcomings of his counsel at the guilt stage. <i>Id.</i> at 1490. The panel nonetheless expressed an opinion that the guilt stage ineffective assistance claims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Motley Page 2 Kentucky law1 and was thus unavailable for cross examination at Fulcher's trial. We find that the admission of Ash's statements did violate Fulcher's clearly established rights and that the error was not harmless. Charlie Bramer was found beaten and stabbed to death in his home in Jefferson County. Fulcher was convicted of burglary. No murder weapon was found. Fulcher's fingerprints were not discovered at the crime scene. He and Fulcher were drinking and watching football at Fulcher's house on the day of the crime. Wright testified that there was nothing he could do to stop Fulcher. Fulcher told Wright that he killed Bramer because Bramer would otherwise have been able to identify them. Patricia Sue Ash was pulled over in a car matching the description of Fulcher's vehicle. Ash could not recall whether Fulcher was present for the discussion. Wright later testified that he was. Where it was recovered by the police. Who had known Fulcher before the murder and who was an inmate with Fulcher. Are carried forward for later trials of pre 1992 crimes by Kentucky Rule of Evidence 107(b) (2005).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-30987-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Before the court is the government's appeal from the district court's order granting defendant Richard Wall's Fed. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Wall was indicted on charges of conspiracy involving a scheme to defraud the state of Louisiana of the proper quality of steel for use in Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) road construction projects. Wall was the regional sales manager for Inland Steel Company. He was charged with one count of conspiracy. The LADOTD maintains a Qualified Products List (QPL) for products that have been tested and approved for use in highway and road construction in Louisiana. Was the only product approved for such use. Wall conspired with Caldwell's president Bill Lovelace and Caldwell's vice presidents Keith Wingfield and Don Gee to use a polymer coated steel product that was not approved by Louisiana. A stencil was applied to these steel coils indicating certain information about the steel. The parties dispute on appeal whether it was required by LADOTD that the name of the laminator be included on the stencil.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/93-5317.ma3.html">FREUND V. BUTTERWORTH (1/22/1999, NO. 93-5317)<BR></A><BR>
The crux of Freund's petition was that he was deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to effective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyers labored under significant conflicts of interest that stemmed primarily from their prior representation of Freund's non testifying. Among Freund's symptoms were impaired memory. His main occupation was a full time criminal. He often had them use cocaine with him immediately before they did anything else.</P> <P> Trent claimed to have ties with the local police through his work as a confidential informant. Four such persons were at Trent's apartment. On the night of the murder: three testified at Freund's trial and the fourth was the victim.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1147p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner appellant Vance was convicted of murder in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The license of Vance's lawyer to practice law in Pennsylvania was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="778"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/73D0D1F90E6BD0F388256FDD00000D77/$file/0316653.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At a murder trial in which the central question is whether the defendant acted in self defense. Are a defendant's constitutional rights violated when spectators are permitted to wear buttons depicting the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2732.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Isaacson</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/958B0BDE14EF6F2988256C36008195E2/$file/9899033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3421_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While he was enrolled at Franklin Middle School in Champaign. He was repeatedly molested by the school's Dean of Students. That Champaign Community Schools Unit District No. 4 and various school officials were deliberately indifferent to the abuse. Because it was relevant to his claim for compensatory damages. We conclude the Does are entitled to a new trial for three reasons. I. BACKGROUND John Doe first enrolled at Franklin Middle School in 1993 as a sixth grader.1 The parties do not dispute that Doe was 1 John Doe and the other putative victims are all African Americans. Smith is Caucasian. Underprivileged African American boys because they were particularly vulnerable and less likely (continued...). No. 04 3421 3 a troubled child whose classroom conduct was disruptive at times. Smith would often seek out Doe on the playground and order him to Smith's office because he was a troublemaker.2 At trial. Smith invited Doe to have breakfast with him. Was the beginning of the molestation. Sexual grooming is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1592.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 37 at line 10. Lynette Labinger with whom Roney & Labinger was on brief for appellants. & Murphy was on brief for Milton W. Lowe
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9918.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the line is corrected to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0050p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the plaintiffs were arrested. [Officer] Andy Walker was dispatched to investigate a disturbance at Richard Emert's residence in Knoxville[. Blizzard told Walker that a 9 mm handgun was missing from the residence and was not in the bag. That Blizzard was not sure whether his father had the handgun with him. Walker reported that three rounds had been fired in the house and that there were no signs of forced entry. Numerous officers were dispatched to that residence. Plaintiffs Hurt and Donna Wilson walked outside the residence and were also arrested. Plaintiffs were held at the Fair Drive location for about an hour. No charges were filed against Plaintiffs.1 As it turns out. Suit was filed one year later. Amended complaints were filed. Discovery was conducted. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. That motion was denied. Which plaintiffs argue was error. Is challenged on appeal. The only federal constitutional claims submitted to the jury were: (1) Hurt's claim that she was arrested without probable cause by Officers Manges and Laycock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971325.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Did allow the jury to decide whether Marathon and Emro's actions were unfair trade practices. I Havird is a gasoline retailer or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Sulloway & Hollis was on brief for appellants U.S. Sullivan and Rice Dolan & Kershaw were on brief for appellants Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Were on brief for appellees. Chief Judge is whether a United States District Court has the power to adopt a local rule that requires federal prosecutors to obtain judicial approval before they serve a subpoena on an attorney to compel evidence concerning a client. Does not have the power to do so with respect to grand jury subpoenas. It is necessary briefly to review some of the recent history leading to this lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. 848 (1988) (evidence that legal representation was provided by a benefactor. The instances of federal prosecutors subpoenaing attorneys to compel evidence regarding theirclients have. The Assistant Attorney General must find that the information is necessary for an investigation or prosecution. That the subpoena is narrowly drawn. Id. 3 In the first year that the Department of Justice Guidelines were in effect. Of which 278 subpoenas were for grand jury proceedings and 85 for trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981424.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Austin (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></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-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1449.html">RAMBUS V. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>William K. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Michael J. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Craig Thomas Merritt</u>. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Christopher Landau</u>. Dixton</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>John M. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Brian C. Rambus filed numerous divisional and continuation applications based on the original 898 application at least thirty one of which have issued.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Many of these patents claim aspects of a memory technology known as Rambus DRAM (RDRAM).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In April 1991. Rambus attended a Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) meeting as a guest.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Rambus officially joined JEDEC in February 1992.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>JEDEC is a standard setting body associated with the Electronic Industries Association (EIA).<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051698p1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-8821.man.html">HICKS V. TALBOTT RECOVERY SYS., INC. (11/22/1999, NO. 98-8821)<BR></A><BR>
Was employed as an internist by Baylor University Medical Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5065.html">ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL V. THE U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-7074.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. LAMPLEY<BR></A><BR>
John Dare Baird were convicted of conspiring to knowingly make and possess a destructive device and maliciously damage and destroy. Baird also were convicted of the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence. Lampley also was convicted of solicitation of a government informant to commit a crime of violence against the United States. Defendants were tried together in district court and argued their appeals in this court on the same day. violation of 18 U.S.C. 2. Baird submit that their Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was unduly prejudiced by the influence of the April 19. The details of their claim are: The trial coincided with the one year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. The corresponding presence of security forces was excessive and media publicity pervasive. A memorial wreath was placed on the courthouse door. A memorial sign was in the window of a Federal Protective Service vehicle parked in front of the courthouse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-15132.opn.html">PEREZ V. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (7/17/2002, NO. 01-15132)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-7074.htm">96-7074 -- U.S. V. LAMPLEY -- 10/20/1997<BR></A><BR>
John Dare Baird were convicted of conspiring to knowingly make and possess a destructive device and maliciously damage and destroy. Baird also were convicted of the use or carrying of a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence. Lampley also was convicted of solicitation of a government informant to commit a crime of violence against the United States. Baird submit that their Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was unduly prejudiced by the influence of the April 19. The details of their claim are: The trial coincided with the one year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. The corresponding presence of security forces was excessive and media publicity pervasive. A memorial wreath was placed on the courthouse door. A memorial sign was in the window of a Federal Protective Service vehicle parked in front of the courthouse. Statements relating to the Oklahoma City bombing were admitted into evidence. <p> <strong>A.</strong> There is no dispute that Defendants were tried during the general anniversary period of the Oklahoma City bombing.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-8821.man.html">HICKS V. TALBOTT RECOVERY SYS., INC. (11/22/1999, NO. 98-8821)<BR></A><BR>
Was employed as an internist by Baylor University Medical Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-15132.opn.html">PEREZ V. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (7/17/2002, NO. 01-15132)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwOTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7090_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury verdict once broken is difficult to put together again. It is difficult to refashion the verdict in a way that accords each party substantial justice. The jury may have made an error favoring defendant. We ordinarily will not consider the argument on appeal. Whose parent is United Technologies. The Fabris warranted and represented to UTI that [n]one of such commissions nor any other money or thing of value has been or will be paid. Including when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415117.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was licensed to practice medicine in Florida and registered under the Controlled Substances Act. He was convicted. Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 Williams was sentenced. He was also sentenced to a five year period of supervised release to follow the imprisonment and ordered to pay $2. The Government presented Williams was previously convicted of Medicaid fraud and served twelve months in federal prison. He was released in 1995. All of the prescriptions discussed in this opinion are prescriptions for controlled substances. Oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled 2 2 1 the expert testimony of Dr. Who was qualified as an expert in the areas of pain management. That he wrote prescriptions for patients whose behavior and physical appearance indicated that they were addicted to controlled substances or who informed Williams that they had been addicted to controlled substances or illegal drugs in the past. That he wrote prescriptions for patients whose toxicology screens (tests to determine which drugs are in a patient's body) showed that they were not taking the prescribed drugs and were instead taking illegal drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1179.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Barry S. With him on the brief were Jeffrey S. This is the second round of a protracted litigation to establish priority of invention between Stampa et al.'s U.S. The Patents Medichem and Rolabo are both pharmaceutical manufacturers based in Barcelona. Loratadine is the active ingredient in the allergy medication Claritin®. Is an alkene. 1248 2 difference between the processes claimed by Medichem1 and Rolabo2 is that Medichem's process requires the reaction to be carried out in the presence of a type of chemical known as a tertiary amine.3 In contrast. Is a species within the genus of the Rolabo invention. Because Rolabo was the party with the earlier effective filing date. Wherein the low valent titanium species are generated by reduction of titanium tetrachloride with zinc dust. 2 Claims 1 and 17 of Rolabo's `827 patent read: 1. D]cyclohept 11 enes comprising reacting a dibenzosuberone or an aza derivative thereof with an aliphatic ketone in the presence of low valent titanium wherein said low valent titanium is generated by zinc. 17.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344.htm">99-3344 -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
Ronald LaHue were convicted by a jury for violations of the Medicare Antikickback Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0370n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff. The following issues are presented in this appeal: (1) Did the district court abuse its discretion when it refused to permit Appellant to present the testimony of three defense witnesses who arrived late. Or that the conduct in question was condoned by Appellant? (3) Also before the Court is a procedural motion Appellant's motion to supplement the record which is addressed herein contemporaneously with the substantive appeal. North Oakland's motion to supplement the record is DENIED. The district's court's ruling is AFFIRMED in part. The case is REMANDED to the district court for retrial. Which was premised on the court's ruling excluding the testimony of several defense witnesses. (4) In accordance with its written order. The Patient Access department was staffed largely by black females. Wheaton is a white female who had a long standing relationship with an African American male.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1284.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which dispute: (1) the district court's refusal to consider evidence beyond the claim record that was closed in 1997. The court's decision to award Ray benefits for the eight years after the record (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> was closed. (2) the district court's determination that working in a large office building environment was a material duty of Ray's occupation. (3) the district court's finding that Ray was totally disabled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. I. Ray was a partner at Gibson. She was insured under the firm's Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1095.htm">97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999<BR></A><BR>
GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. <p> Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation <p> MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-30481-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Scroggins was sentenced to life imprisonment We vacate Scroggins's and five years of supervised release. sentence and remand to the district court for further proceedings as explained below. Was arrested in March 2001 for drug trafficking. days after Buchanan's arrest. Claiming that he was doing this to assist Buchanan. was already under investigation. Scroggins later told Green that he had set up a ten kilogram cocaine and 200 pound marihuana deal with Sosa thirty days before even speaking with Green and that this was going to be his last deal and that it was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062836P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court should have granted his second motion for a new trial based on the fact that his trial attorney had been suspended from practice by the State of Arkansas during his representation of Watson. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 1 Watson and a codefendant were indicted in May 2004 on six counts of drug related offenses. A superceding indictment was returned in October 2004 adding an additional defendant. The motion was denied. Watson was represented by retained counsel R.S. McCullough was suspended from the practice of law by state authorities while they investigated a complaint unrelated to Watson's case. McCullough's federal practice status was not immediately affected although proceedings were initiated to consider his suspension. His right to practice in the federal district courts in Arkansas was suspended on January 1. Watson's second motion for a new trial was brought by new counsel who argued that representation by a suspended attorney had violated Watson's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/012730P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding defense trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a jury poll regarding a newspaper article during the trial and also finding no trial court error in failing to poll the jury regarding the mid trial publicity. Were each charged with murder and burglary. The three were then tried together. That will be your sworn duty if you are selected as a juror. If there is. Arguing the newspaper article was prejudicial to Tunstall in two respects. The article contained misstatements: (a) the headline was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></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-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41C6261BDE70D75888257187007BC638/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-9078.man.html">MINCEY V. HEAD (3/16/2000, NO. 97-9078)<BR></A><BR>
His principle grounds for relief (among twenty five grounds) are that the police obtained incriminating statements from him after he asked for a lawyer. One was Timothy Jenkins. Jones and Jenkins were barely acquainted. All three were the same age. Each was armed: Mincey was carrying a .38 caliber semi automatic Llama pistol. The drug dealer they intended to rob was not at his usual place of business. While that discussion was taking place. Noting that the area was too congested. It was closed. A store employee was one of Mincey's trailer park neighbors.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1296p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. THE HISTORY OF THE CASE This matter is before this court on appeal following proceedings having an unusual procedural history. Is a tugboat operator on the Delaware River in the Philadelphia area. Is now the appellant. Are to John Bethel. Thereby suggesting that he was a drug user and hindering his efforts to obtain employment in the maritime and shipping industry. Charging that he was also liable for these alleged wrongs. Which is not at issue on this appeal. Inasmuch as we are not concerned with these claims. As a matter of convenience we will treat this case as simply a defamation action between Bethel. We nevertheless have considered the arguments Huesser set forth both in his brief and at oral argument. Did not understand McAllister's statements as indicating that Bethel was a drug user. Further concluded that Bethel failed to prove that McAllister's statements caused him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3344a.htm">99-3344A -- U.S. V. LAHUE -- 06/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115132.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants' motion. Were working undercover when they overheard a police radio report that fellow officers were in pursuit of several black 1 Rule 36(b).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1287.htm">97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR>
McVeigh (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0120p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) denying Winters's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the complaint on the grounds that the deferred compensation accrual on the final cost report was immaterial. (4) denying Winters's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (a) the jury verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. (b) there was no evidence the Government sustained any harm. (c) the jury was confused in calculating damages. The jury verdict and remitted award of damages is AFFIRMED. All of which were managed through Medshares Management Group. Which was in place at all of the other home health agencies owned by Winters and managed by MMGI. The Plan was a deferred profit sharing and stock bonus plan. It was Winters's policy that after buying a home health agency. I at 132) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI4MDktcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2809-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Ronald Wells is an inmate in the Green Haven Correctional Facility. Magistrate Judge) granted Wells's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his appointed counsel abandoned at trial a theory that someone else Richie Roman committed the crime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-30481-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Scroggins was sentenced to life imprisonment We vacate Scroggins's and five years of supervised release. sentence and remand to the district court for further proceedings as explained below. Was arrested in March 2001 for drug trafficking. days after Buchanan's arrest. Claiming that he was doing this to assist Buchanan. was already under investigation. Scroggins later told Green that he had set up a ten kilogram cocaine and 200 pound marihuana deal with Sosa thirty days before even speaking with Green and that this was going to be his last deal and that it was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1187.html">SLIP TRACK SYSTEMS, INC V. METAL-LITE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/951554P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
During the The victims are granddaughters of Rosemary Rouse. R. was placed with Donna Jordan. Who reported to the Tribe's Department of Social Services (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044335p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-3603.man.html">ZAND V. COMMISSIONER (6/15/1998, NO. 96-3603)<BR></A><BR>
The sole issue for our review is whether the Tax Court violated the taxpayers' rights to due process and to a fair trial. As the taxpayers' constitutional rights were not violated. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="745"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-3603.man.html">ZAND V. COMMISSIONER (6/15/1998, NO. 96-3603)<BR></A><BR>
The sole issue for our review is whether the Tax Court violated the taxpayers' rights to due process and to a fair trial. As the taxpayers' constitutional rights were not violated. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2323.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1634.html">CONSOLIDATED BEARINGS COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>John D. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Cris R. Will &. Line height:200%'>Because no other subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1581 was or could have been a basis for jurisdiction in this case. Trial court was correct in finding jurisdiction under section 1581(i).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In addition. Line height:200%'>Commerce issues antidumping duty orders for imported merchandise that is sold in the United States below its fair value and materially injures or threatens to injure a domestic industry.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> 19 U.S.C. § 1673e (2000). Each participating importer of FAG manufactured AFBs received a new specific duty rate.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Information concerning Consolidated s imports and the reseller that export
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="743"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0186p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld was charged with poisoning a prison guard while he was an inmate at a Michigan prison. Ruimveld was shackled in view of the jury. The Michigan state courts found that this shackling was improper. That it was harmless error. On the ground that the shackling was highly prejudicial to his trial. Because the presumption of innocence is a central tenet of the American justice system. It was found that a cleaning agent used in the prison had been added to Snyder's coffee. Two inmates were out of their cells performing cleaning duties with the cleaning agent at issue: Billy Sirrene and Petitioner Appellee Chad Ruimveld. Ruimveld was charged with poisoning. Ruimveld's trial was held in a special courtroom inside the prison that was regularly used to avoid transporting prisoners to an outside court. The evidence against Ruimveld was entirely circumstantial. Neither could be certain as to whether this was before or after Snyder poured her coffee. Ruimveld was brought into the courtroom in leg shackles.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4944674D44A34F2888256EBE004D1A42/$file/0156320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Edmund Chein was an expert medical witness in an automobile accident trial in California state court. He was also involved in a suit with a former business associate concerning the distribution of fees paid by patients. In the second an interrogatory answer that was misleading. He was charged in California state court with four counts of perjury and convicted of three. It is worth recalling
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sale was completed in January 2000. Leonor's goal was to use this as an opportunity to attract and retain Dr. Stockman asked for a raise to $55.00 per hour because that was the average pay for dentists in the locale. Stockman was not producing and billing the average amount. It is disputed whether this reason was communicated to Dr. Was being paid $55.00 per hour. His pay was recalculated every year based upon his prior year's production. Stockman's work week was scaled back from four days to three. Who were both in their thirties. Stockman went home that day claiming he was ill. Stockman was in bed with flu like symptoms. Leonor claimed that he did not have the heart to terminate Dr. He alleged that he was 73 years old at the time and was subject to disparate treatment because of his age. He alleged he was afforded fewer operatories (rooms in which to do dental work). He was not given a dedicated and competent dental assistant. New patients who required more expensive treatments were steered away from him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ltd</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This case requires us to determine whether appellant Capital Terminal Company was entitled to reach a jury on its claim that certain improvements to a fire suppression system were required by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6397a.htm">02-6397A -- IVES V. BOONE -- 05/03/2004<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="738"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C382D0C30B8A79A88256C09005930CE/$file/9915645.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That sex was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyMjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1229-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: No holiday season is complete. At issue in this case is the holiday display policy promulgated by the Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/95-8079.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MEYERS<BR></A><BR>
David Meyers (Meyers) appeals from his conviction and sentence entered following a jury trial wherein he was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana. The attempt failed and the marijuana was discovered. Agent Freel testified to the grand jury that Jones was involved in storing and packaging marijuana in various quantities for Meyers between January and August. It was Meyers who advised Jones and inspected the packages. Meyers was indicted by a grand jury on Count I and Count II. Meyers pled not guilty and trial was set for October 2. Who was acting at the direction of Meyers. Recore testified that he was receiving all the marijuana he distributed to Jones from Meyers and that he was acting at Meyers' direction by delivering the marijuana to Jones. Meyers testified that he is the founder and Reverend of the Church of Marijuana and that it is his sincere belief that his religion commands him to use. The district court concluded that the neutral drug laws at issue were not subject to a First Amendment free exercise challenge and that Meyers' beliefs did not constitute a religion for purposes of the RFRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTE0MDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1407_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Valentin similarly challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds and also claims that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a preponderance challenge to his Guidelines calculation. Whose conviction was based on a jury verdict. Whose conviction was based on a guilty plea. We agree with Garcia that the agent's opinion testimony at trial as to Garcia's culpable role in the charged crimes was not properly received. Although the government argues that this testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 as a lay opinion summary of anticipated evidence. We conclude that the necessary predicates of that rule were not satisfied in this case. Because this evidentiary error was harmless. We affirm so much of Garcia's judgment of conviction as reflects the jury verdict 1 2 3 Although the enhanced sentence provision of § 841(b)(1)(A) is triggered by trafficking in amounts of five kilograms or more of cocaine. We conclude that the district court's Guidelines calculations are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6397.htm">02-6397 -- IVES V. BOONE -- 05/03/2004<BR></A><BR>
The district court rejected eight of the nine claims because they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/93-2951.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. BRAZEL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> These appeals are from the convictions of seven individuals charged with drug trafficking offenses following a jury trial that took place in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Marlon McNealy were allegedly all associated with an organization led by Ronald Mathis (a/k/a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1108p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The specific issue we must decide is whether Hill's plea nonetheless comported with the Supreme Court's directive in Boykin v. That a guilty plea not be accepted absent an affirmative showing that it was knowing and voluntary. This matter is further complicated because the district court declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge who. Having conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Hill knew of the constitutional rights he was waiving at the time he entered his plea. Concluded that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. They were pursued by Patrolman Daniel Chernavsky of the Medford Police Department. Sergeant Frank Fullerton of the Moorestown Police Department pursued Jones and was shot twice in the stomach and once in the right shoulder. Hill was not present when the fatal shots were fired. Carter and Evans were arrested and charged with multiple counts of armed robbery. Hill was 18 years old with an eleventh grade education. His only prior involvement with the criminal justice system as an adult was in Philadelphia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-13536.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. RENICK (11/20/2001, NO. 00-13536)<BR></A><BR>
Renick (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/995489.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will only call a charge an Allen charge when the court directed the minority jurors to reconsider their views in light 2 counts against the three defendants: the Podlasecks. We will REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.2 I. David Podlaseck was president of EMB. Was EMB's primary salesman. Was its treasurer and office manager. Were also indicted by the grand jury. The defendants were charged with: one count of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. We will refer to charges as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/955312.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
VA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-13536.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. RENICK (11/20/2001, NO. 00-13536)<BR></A><BR>
Renick (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1877A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Molloy was on brief for defendants Arsenal Auto Repairs. Were on brief for defendant Jack Markarian. Were on brief for plaintiff appellee Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 3 KEETON. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain payments on fraudulent insurance claims. The judgment was for Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="732"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9D6DB197E87E1F188256F780000E7E9/$file/0335081.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lambert filed a Personal Restraint Petition in the Washington Court of Appeals attacking his plea on the grounds that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel and the plea was not knowingly. Failed to advise him that he should not plead guilty because he would receive the same sentence if he were convicted after a trial. (3) Romero labored under an actual conflict of interest created by his association with an indigent defense firm that was also representing Lambert's co defendant. Lambert also reasserted the allegation that his guilty plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware that the sentence set forth in his plea agreement life in prison without the possibility of parole truly meant that he would never be released. BLODGETT 17319 also concluded that Lambert was entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his plea was not knowing. Voluntary and intelligent because he was unaware of the punishment he would face. Lambert cross appeals the issues on which he was denied relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044015np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that these claims lack merit and will affirm Rottschaefer's convictions. We will vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with United States v. I. 2 Rottschaefer's prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance claims are based on his theory that he was improperly tried and convicted under a medical malpractice or negligence standard. Under which Rottschaefer was convicted. Physicians are exempt from this provision to the extent that they act lawfully. They are subject to criminal liability when their drug prescribing and dispensing activities fall
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1529.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Milly Whatley and LaChance & Whatley were on brief. Was on brief. The prosecution was able to adduce virtually irrefutable proof of this duplicity: dual sets of 1Carrying the adversarial ethic to an extreme. The parties are unable to agree on the spelling of Mr. He contends that such statements do not 2Complementing this first provision is a second. Covering deceptive importations that are designed to deprive the government of duties. Although the prosecution in this case may have missed the bull's eye by charging appellant under the first. The government is bound by its charging decision. The proviso we have quoted governs here. 4 fall within the scope of the statute of conviction because the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013536.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-6183.htm">02-6183 -- U.S. V. NELSON -- 09/20/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3289E17C794ACECA88256D7A006C895A/$file/0136130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that he was retaliated against and ultimately fired due to his Chinese ethnicity and nationality. A Zhang's name is found in the record as both Zhang Wei. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual recitation herein is taken from the evidence presented to the jury. Zhang was hired to join American Gem after the takeover. Which was signed by Al Reitzer. Zhang's position was vice president of American Gem and general manager of its Pacific Gem division. Zhang testified that although his division was integral to the new company's operations. He was initially offered a lower salary than the Caucasian vice presidents of the acquired companies. Zhang was promoted to president of the Pacific Gem division. Appellant Harry Lees was hired as president and CEO of MCMI. Jim Hilger was hired as the Chief Financial Officer of American Gem. Zhang presented evidence that he was discriminated against by American Gem's management. Witnesses testified that Lees told them that he distrusted Zhang because he was Chinese. That Lees suspected that Zhang was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1614.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: On page 52. With whom Rankin & Sultan was on brief. Weissberg & Garin were on brief. Murray and Ramsey & Murray were on brief. Were on brief. A professional assassin who bragged that he was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117133ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. The United States Supreme Court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="727"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nebraska (Local Office). 1988 in the district FAIR was denied access to the Local Office. Concluding that FAIR's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because: (1) the Local Office's policy was not vague. (2) the Local Office was not a public forum. (3) the Local Office's regulation of expressive conduct was reasonable. (4) the Local Office's prohibition on FAIR's efforts to advocate its position to a captive audience was not motivated by opposition to its viewpoint. The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of federal constitutional law. We are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. This Court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1536.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Burke & McMenimen was on brief. Was on brief. Were indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with various counts of mail and wire fraud. Because we conclude that Sutton's other ground of appeal is also bootless. What Transpired What Transpired After the jury was sworn. Who will give it to the clerk. Who will give it to me. To find out what this witness has to say about what it is that you're concerned about. . . . It doesn't mean it was wrong of you to ask it. What I do is put the question out on the table here where the lawyers can look at it. No objections were lodged to this portion of the precharge. From a juror: May we submit questions to be addressed to witnesses while the witness is on the stand? That really is the essence of your right to ask questions. Unless a witness who could answer that question is on the witness stand. The essence of your right to ask questions is that right to question these witnesses. It's just that you have to question them through written questions. You have the right at any time to ask a question of any witness.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2002.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. H‚ctor Famania were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Rodrˇguez was additionally convicted on three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. The defendants raise numerous issues among which are the lack of sufficient evidence to convict and abuse of prosecutorial discretion. At the helm of the operation was Miguel Rodrˇguez. Among his lieutenants were John Rosario and H‚ctor Famania. Was an undercover police officer. The ounce of crack was supplied by Rodrˇguez and delivered by De JesŁs to the officer in her vehicle. Ellerbee was directed to the passenger seat of Rodrˇguez's car. Was a baggie of crack. Villafa¤e pled guilty and were sentenced to terms ranging from time served to sixty months. Were convicted on all counts. Rodrˇguez was sentenced to life imprisonment. One who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden: he must show that no rational jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C86F1E23421356A882571B10081689F/$file/0510037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is unlawful for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelt was to repay Horizon with interest. Horizon was to receive half of Kelt's profits. Deglau was to get an annual salary of $80. Kelt's stock and all of its assets were pledged as security for this loan. The Loan Agreement was negotiated by Deglau's lawyer. The terms of the loan agreement are disputed. Will be discussed below. 000 line of credit if it was personally guaranteed by Deglau and his wife. The note itself was signed in blank. It was eventually filled out to reflect a $200. He was personally liable for the additional $100. He tells us he was assured verbally that the Guaranty would apply only to the $200. Horizon was experiencing financial turmoil. Was 1. Citations to the Appellant's Appendix will be indicated by R.[page]. 3 eventually taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and later by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).2 In 1990. The FDIC advised Deglau that he was in default on the 1985 Kelt note for about $1.3 million. A familiarity with judgment by confession as undertaken in Pennsylvania is essential to the decision of this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="725"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1618.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Comey Boyd & Luskin were on brief. Were on brief. Slomovits was accepting millions of dollars in cash each week from Duvan Arboleda. The transactions were accomplished without documentation. The bills were usually in small denominations. These purchases were made at various banks by underlings (e.g. The money received in New York was transported to Rhode Island by armored car and then deposited in an account standing in the name of a controlled corporation. See 31 U.S.C.A. 5324 (West Supp. 1995) is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR>
Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1266.html">LOUGH V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/971412.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We have granted en banc review to resolve a conflict in our court's jurisprudence that has surfaced following the publication of United States v. We granted the government's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.2 We will now affirm the convictions entered against defendants Universal Rehabilitation Services (PA). Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1406.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rudman LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The SEC cross appeals from the portion of the district court's judgment imposing sanctions against the SEC for refusing to stipulate until mid trial that no telephone call to Happ was made from the office of the SEC's main witness on June 25. Happ was a Director. One was that shipments had been impacted for the second quarter due to a jurisdictional dispute between the United States Departments of Commerce and State with respect to export of some products. Hanley testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/95-6776.man.html">BALDWIN V. JOHNSON (9/1/1998, NO. 95-6776)<BR></A><BR>
Convicted Baldwin of the capital felony of robbery during which the victim was intentionally killed. Baldwin contended that the State of Alabama did not have jurisdiction to try him where the charged offense. (1) whether Baldwin's confessions were knowingly and voluntarily made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-3026a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs was Miguel A. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. While the merchandise is delivered. One man
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitionerappellant Ronald Dean Combs was convicted by an Ohio jury of two counts of aggravated murder as well as a specification of an aggravating circumstance as to each count. He was sentenced to death. For reasons that will be explained below. Combs was taken to the hospital and underwent extensive treatment for his gunshot wounds. His right arm was amputated. His left arm was left partly paralyzed. Combs was charged with two counts of aggravated murder. Which is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0864p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are confronted in this case with a tension between two issues of critical constitutional concern: the need to protect the confidentiality of jurors' deliberations while. Guaranteeing the right of the press and the public to have access to court proceedings. We will. We will reverse in part and affirm in part the restrictions imposed by the district court on the conduct of juror interviews. We find that the sealing of the transcript was accomplished prematurely. It was done without adequate notice. We further find that the restrictions imposed on the use of juror information at the time of the unsealing were not supported by an actual or potential threat either of juror harassment or of invasion of the deliberative process as it was taking place. Nor do we intend to suggest that the restrictions which we find to have been improperly imposed here may not be permissible in some future case. There are. Is directly controlling. That the presumptive right of access applied to the voir dire proceedings as they were recorded in the trial transcript.[fn1] Applying the requirement that detailed findings of the need for restrictions be made before any restriction is imposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061140p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-2293.wpd.html">BROWN V. PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH CARE SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
The defendants'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991497.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Stroud Group expelled the Riese Group from SALT due to alleged poor construction and financial The general contractor for the Lexington Project actually was Gibraltar Companies of Tennessee. Is not material. Violations of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60529-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962136.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted and sentenced for The Honorable James L. Hernandez was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder by supporting and implementing a plan to shoot down United States civilian aircraft outside of Cuban and United States airspace. That the pervasive community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government and its agents and the publicity surrounding the trial and other community events combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial.1 We agree. Medina contend that the evidence was insufficient on the counts relating to violations of the Foreign Services Registration Act. Our review of the evidence at trial is more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of a motion for change of venue. This is so because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations. Medina were arrested on a criminal complaint on 12 September 1998. Were subsequently indicted with nine codefendants for conspiring to act as agents of the Republic of Cuba without registering with the Attorney General of the United States and to defraud the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1951.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/989.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Earl Sexton was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Kimberly Crews. I A The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina on direct appeal. Kimberly Crews (Crews) was a child abuse counselor. Her office was located in the Wake Area Health Education Center. Which is part of the Wake County Medical Center (WCMC) in Raleigh. Crews telephoned her 1 Because Sexton's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on July 3. Who was at home with their daughter. Crews then told her husband that she had just finished with her last client and was on her way home. When she realized it was raining heavily. The umbrella was lying upside down with water in it. Where Sexton was employed. Testified that Sexton was at work when he (McCoy) arrived at 2:00 p.m. on August 8. Sexton was missing. McCoy testified that the next time he saw Sexton was after everybody had punched out. Sexton came running in through the back ramp and was soaking wet. I was out there fixing my young lady's car and that was the only thing I was out there doing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/989009r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1021.html">EXXON V. LUBRIZOL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1079.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Bruce R. Of counsel was H. With him on the brief were Edward C. The court will collectively refer to these parties as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611684.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only issues on which Stewart was granted a certificate of appealability are whether Stewart's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) provide the mental health expert witness with all available information to identify possible mitigating circumstances. While he was hitchhiking. Who was visiting the grandparents. Trial counsel argued that Stewart was guilty of aggravated battery and manslaughter or. Trial counsel thus believed that Stewart's testimony
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams's appeal is now before the court. After receiving word via walkie talkie that the situation was secure. Who were roommates. Jessica answered the door and told Wynn that Madison was not home and Howard was asleep. Went back in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/959001.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some of the claims that he now advances had been fairly presented to the state courts at the time of the District Court decision and are properly before us. Consequently they too are properly before us. Still other claims were never raised in the District Court but were presented to the state courts after the District Court issued its decision. We find no merit in the guilt phase claims that are properly before us for review. We reverse the decision of the District Court with respect to Carpenter's sentence because we conclude that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the penalty phase when he failed to object to a highly misleading answer given by the trial judge in response to a jury question about the availability of parole if Carpenter was sentenced to life imprisonment. I. The evidence at trial revealed that Jimmie Lee Taylor was stabbed in the heart on South Penn Street in York. He was pronounced dead at 10:58 p.m. at York Hospital. The Commonwealth's principal witness at trial was Ruth Helen Emmil.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5005.html">COMMERCIAL V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tiffany Skiba was stabbed to death on November 8. That recommendation was adopted by the trial judge. GRANT Frazier a conditional writ of habeas corpus that will result in the vacation of his death sentence unless the state of Ohio No. 01 3122 Frazier v. Bednarski discovered that Skiba was pregnant. Both women believed that Skiba's pregnancy was the result of sexual abuse by Frazier. Frazier was indicted in state court on two counts of rape and two counts involving other sex crimes. Dates for the blood test and the trial were then set by the state criminal court. Skiba was terrified of Frazier. She was visibly disturbed any time that she was in his presence. Skiba confided in one friend her fear that Frazier was going to kill her. His dog was barking and looking excitedly at the back door. Robert Skiba was met with the ghastly sight of his granddaughter's corpse lying in bed. The knife was part of a set belonging to her grandparents. There was blood on the knife. Although it was normally kept closed. The door leading from the basement into the rest of the house was open.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0450p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts giving rise to Lyell's arrest and trial are straightforward. The trial was anything but straightforward. The following exchange is illustrative: THE COURT: Is there any reason why you don't ask [the witness] what [another witness. WENZEL[the prosecutor]: Because technically it is hearsay. THE COURT: It is admissible. We are talking about at least it has been established that this is an exciting event. It makes a whole lot more sense if the witness tells us what was said to her. When things are so obvious. The interruptions often contained implications that Hart's attempts to discredit Nimeth's character for truthfulness were not relevant to the case. Renico Page 3 because Nimeth's proclivity for lying to the police was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-2332.htm">97-2332 -- U.S. V. QUINTANILLA -- 10/01/1999<BR></A><BR>
Was stopped at a United States Border Patrol checkpoint in Alamogordo. Defendant asked the agent what would happen to her and her two children (who were passengers in the truck) if drugs were found inside. A subsequent registration check revealed the license plate on the truck was registered to a different vehicle belonging to an individual from Pecos. Defendant was then arrested. <p> After being advised of her <u>Miranda</u> rights. Defendant maintained she was en route to a party in Alamogordo and was driving a truck loaned to her by Aleman. Aleman was nowhere to be found. <p> That same day. To tell Aleman defendant was in Alamogordo having her truck repaired. Sanchez told him defendant was not available but that her truck was being serviced in the shop. Aleman promised he (as the purported owner) would arrange to have the truck retrieved. Aleman verified to Sanchez that Bautista was acting at his direction. The address he gave was that of defendant's prior residence in Los Angeles. One of the phone numbers he gave was traced to an El Paso home owned by Adan Saranda.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2251.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hrones with whom Hrones & Garrity was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Her appeal presents a single question: whether she was tried within the 70 day time limit imposed by the Speedy Trial Act. Barnes was subsequently tried and convicted on both counts. The court failed to police the speedy trial clock vigilantly during a crucial 5 month period beginning in the fall of 1996 when the trial date was inexplicably adjourned. The 70 day limit was exceeded by some 121 days. That the seriousness of the offenses with which defendant was charged. A complaint was issued in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts charging Barnes and her brother Reynaldo Barnes with conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States from Panama. An order was entered 3 days later removing Barnes to the District of Massachusetts. A briefing schedule for pretrial motions was set at this conference: all motions were to be filed by October 3. This motion was granted. Barnes was arraigned on October 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BAFCE5A2E7CF80188256EB300546C8F/$file/0155246.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Robert Kennedy was tried twice on a charge of selling 0.08 grams of a substance in lieu of a controlled narcotic drug a substance that looked like an illegal drug but wasn't to an undercover police officer for $20. Kennedy was represented by a new attorney who proceeded without the aid of a complete transcript of the prior trial. Aware that the new attorney did not have the full transcript. He was sentenced for the $20 sale of a non drug to 7848 KENNEDY v. He argues that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection was violated when the state court denied his request for the full transcript of his first trial. Because the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law. Was Detective Leroy McDowell of the San Diego Police Department. Detective McDowell testified that he was working undercover narcotics detail in casual clothes one afternoon in October of 1995.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-3693.man.html">MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693)<BR></A><BR>
They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ1MDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4500-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: These are appeals from judgments following two separate phases of a jury trial to adjudicate whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11. The parties are entities with varying property interests in the WTC (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5016a.html">JOHN H. MCBRYDE V. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CIRCUIT COUNCIL CONDUCT<BR></A><BR>
Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Et al.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2539.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Rivera alleged that he was the victim of adverse employment actions motivated by political animus. Who was sued in both his individual and official capacities. The jury found that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178a.htm">97-3178A -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge. *Judge Ervin died while the case was under submission. The judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed by an equally divided en banc court. While the case was under submission. Circuit Judge: The question before this Court is whether a district court must comply with a jury's request for a definition of reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. Our current practice is well established. We have never required a district court to define reasonable doubt to a jury. Walton and Eldridge Mayfield (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315640.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a consolidated criminal appeal of the convictions and sentences of seven former Miami police officers. Jorge Castello (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-2966.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is. The Reynolds asserted that these letters were binding admissions by the IRS. The Tax Court upheld a 20% accuracy related penalty because it found that some of the remaining errors were the result of negligence. Reynolds graduated from law school and was promoted to a supervisory position. The IRS commenced an investigation of Reynolds springing from concerns that he may have been conducting his private law practice during his workday at the IRS. The investigation was officially terminated in 1995. Which is the time period relevant to this dispute. These efforts were limited to a few real estate closings and related activities. Are currently before us on appeal. Schedule C is used to calculate a profit or loss from a sole proprietorship e.g. Schedule A is used to itemize various personal expenses that are deductible under federal law. Schedule E is used to state supplemental income or loss from various other activities e.g. Schedule F is used to state a profit or loss from farming activity. 3 2 Neither party in this case provides an intelligible summary of precisely which automobile and travel deductions are now on appeal nor do they give us the total amount of the claimed deductions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/021343u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us are just some of the bitter fruits of a legal partnership gone awry. Because Lundy is without standing to pursue these state law claims in an Article III court. We will vacate the orders of the District Court and remand with instructions to dismiss these claims.1 I. Are unrelated to the unauthorized practice of law claim and are disposed of in a separate decision filed this same date. 2 1 Lundy. Lundy claims to have learned that Hochberg had previously pled guilty to a federal count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Was therefore practicing law in Pennsylvania without a license. Diamond who was previously associated with Lundy. Left to practice with Haymond and Hochberg when H&L was dissolved The record belies Lundy's present assertions of ignorance regarding Hochberg's criminal conviction and licensure status. That Lundy was informed of Hochberg's indictment when Lundy. Hochberg were negotiating to form H&L in April 1997. Knew or should have known about the subsequent plea. Hochberg and Haymond had continued as partners and were allied against Lundy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 01/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991319.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-3693.man.html">MEEKS V. MOORE (6/27/2000, NO. 98-3693)<BR></A><BR>
They noticed that Thompson was lying behind the sales counter and that she was apparently injured. The boys saw that blood was flowing out of a knife wound in her neck. Thompson was gasping for air and waiving her hand wildly. There was also blood on the counter and on the sides of the cash register.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1623.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1490.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The second sentence of the first full paragraph on page 25 should be deleted. The following two sentences should be inserted in its place: And the only other evidence of a representation regarding commercialization levels at KOVR introduced by Anchor at the second trial was the so called July/August 1988 day part summary. The July/August 1988 day part summary allegedly misrepresented that KOVR was undercommercialized in July and August 1988 and understated commercial generated income during this same period. Goldenberg & Muri were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for defendants appellees Narragansett Capital. It will be reiterated here only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues before us. Anchor was awarded the station after submitting the high bid at a closed auction held in late September 1988. The sale price eventually agreed upon by the parties was $162 million. The deal was structured as a merger of an Anchor subsidiary into the corporate owner of KOVR. The terms of the 2 2 merger were memorialized in a merger agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 2 1 parking lot. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 3 2 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the Spivey enumerated twenty four claims before the district court. In particular portions of medical records which were relied on by Spivey's psychiatric expert. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988288.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spivey was tried and convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment for the former and twenty years for the latter. Because it was based in part on the use of evidence gathered in a psychiatric examination of Spivey that was conducted in violation of his constitutional rights. 1 coming to investigate. Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. He was never charged with any sexual offense. 2 In November of 1983. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under Johnson v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR>
Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-8288.man.html">SPIVEY V. HEAD (3/28/2000, NO. 98-8288)<BR></A><BR>
Spivey was tried for the activities taking place in Columbus and convicted of murder. Spivey was tried and convicted again in Muscogee County. The State does not contend that the petition is successive. Spivey argues that 1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the failure to change venue. 2) he was deprived of a fair trial by excessive security measures during the trial. 3) he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury by the trial judge's restrictions on voir dire. 4) he was denied a fundamentally fair trial by the prosecutor's improper arguments to the jury. 5) his prior vacated conviction was relied on in sentencing thus violating his Eighth Amendment rights under </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1362.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Wright & Cherry was on brief. With whom Peabody & Brown was on brief. With whom King and Ryan was on brief. P.A. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. Hood was on brief. Were on brief. Suggest that while two New Hampshiremen might once have been a match for Satan. Times have changed. Further facts will be added as we discuss specific issues. Sepulveda was usually accompanied by his brother.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-8125.htm">97-8125 -- COLETTI V. CUDD PRESSURE CONTROL -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR>
She alleges the trial court improperly denied her the opportunity to introduce deposition testimony as substantive evidence because the deponents were present at trial and available to testify. Coletti contends the trial court should have imposed sanctions for Cudd's alleged failure to timely and adequately comply with the court's discovery orders. <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Ms. Coletti was formerly an at will employee working as an administrator for Cudd. Cudd supervisors visited the Rock Springs office in an attempt to cure certain problems the company was having with operations there. Coletti she was placing her on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a breach of BOWNES. This time around he was awarded $20. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The following facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. All reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor. The plaintiffs appellants in this case are the conjugal partnership comprising Joseph Jones and his wife Vernetta. The defendants appellees are the conjugal partnership comprising Arthur Pineda and his wife Toni. The position was offered for a one year term. Judge Acosta was the presiding judge in the San Juan Dupont Hotel Fire Litigation. Who was not a court reporter but aided her husband in producing the transcripts. Which was reluctantly given. Judge Acosta was not impressed with his reporting skills. Pineda never informed Jones that Judge Acosta's authorization was a condition precedent to the oral contract. The Dupont trial was scheduled to proceed in discrete
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DFBFA331758B76888256D3C0073F2F1/$file/0299000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Lawrence Bittaker was convicted in California state court of multiple murders and was sentenced to death. The question presented to us is the scope of the habeas petitioner's waiver: Does it extend only to litigation of the federal habeas petition. Or is the attorney client privilege waived for all time and all purposes including the possible retrial of the petitioner. The parties will immediately advise the court of any future rulings in Osband v. ER at 8 9 (underscored portion in handscript). 2 The parties spill much ink on the subsidiary question whether the district court would have had discretion to enter the protective order even if the disclosed materials lost their privilege for all purposes. WOODFORD 7641 Jurisdiction The challenged order is not a final judgment. Yet the parties agree that it is reviewable as a collateral order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The matter is closer than the concurrence of the parties would suggest. The protective order is. At that time we will know much more about the practical effect of the order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/011610P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She brought this action alleging that her discharge was unlawful because a report she had made to law enforcement authorities about customer photos was protected under Nebraska law. The case was tried to a jury whose verdict was for Wal Mart. Gasper's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court. Gasper was employed in the photo processing department of a Wal Mart store in Fremont. There are restrictions on the handling of materials by photo center employees. These include restrictions on discussing or showing the materials or letting them leave the lab area.2 Employees are instructed to take any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021834P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background SPFD is organized into three shifts at each fire station. Each shift is on duty for twenty four hours at a time. Brown were parties to the suit. Was chosen to serve in the newly created Assistant Chief position. The settlement released the City from all claims that these Appellants might have had against the City arising before June 17. When the settlement was announced. Smith was filling in for an A shift firefighter. A shift Captain Rodney Bergstrom would often conduct a white glove inspection of the fire department when the B shift was coming off duty and the A shift was coming on duty. B shift Captain John Dubois testified that these housekeeping issues were common disputes among shifts. These housekeeping complaints were never 3 contemporaneously reported to Captain Dubois. Members of the A shift complained that members of the B shift were staying at the station after the B shift ended. The B shift was directed to be out of the station by 8:00 a.m. This was the first order of this kind at station 20.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/99-6433.htm">99-6433 -- FISHER V. GIBSON -- 03/12/2002<BR></A><BR>
Fisher was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma County District Court and sentenced to death in September 1983. The appeal of the state regarding reversal of the death sentence is moot. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-7138a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Gary A. With him on the briefs were Stephen A. With him on the briefs were George D. Which applies when a district judge becomes unable to proceed and is replaced by a successor judge. This required signifi cant changes in utility relocation plans that were important to the early stages of construction of the Shaw Street station. The contractors were running a deficit of over $8.6 million on the Shaw Street project alone. Coupled with the fact that Perini was no longer making capital contri butions to the project. Each burst of energy was short lived. Asserting that the September and December 1990 mile stone dates were no longer attainable. It was not entirely clear whether Perini. Observing that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0201n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals his conviction and sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for writing or approving prescriptions that were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose and were not in the usual course of his medical practice. Defendant was convicted of eight of the eleven counts against him. Defendant argues 1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction on six charges. 2) that his conviction on all counts should be overturned because he was denied a fair trial. By writing or approving prescriptions that were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose and were not in the usual course of Defendant's professional practice as a urologist. Defendant was convicted of eight of the eleven drug charges (Counts 1. 11) but was acquitted of all of the firearms charges and the remaining three drug charges. IV controlled substances by writing or approving prescriptions that were not in the usual course of his professional practice. The district court accepted the probation officer's findings that Defendant's sentencing range was between 235 to 293 months imprisonment based on an offense level of thirtysix and a category III criminal history.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion issued 9/14/00 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WALTER MICKENS. He was sentenced to death. Mickens' federal habeas counsel discovered something by chance that Mickens did not know: Mickens' lead counsel in his murder case was representing the murder victim on criminal charges at the time of the victim's death. The state judge who appointed counsel for Mickens knew or should have known that the back to back representation presented an apparent conflict. There is more. The district court will award the writ on remand unless the Commonwealth of Virginia gives Mickens a new trial. Was living with his fourteen year old friend. One item about Hall's dress that evening becomes important later: he was wearing a pair of Gordon's Nike brand
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5053.html">ARGENT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/812611C11E0F9971882571D8005799B1/$file/0530076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. We must consider whether defense counsel was improperly prevented from cross examining coconspirators about the prison sentences they would have received but for their cooperation with the government. Whether other trial rulings were proper. 10268 UNITED STATES v. Investigated the possibility that Patricia Ann Larson and Leon Nels Laverdure were involved in a conspiracy to purchase and distribute methamphetamine. Conviction for the originally charged offense would have subjected Poitra to a term of imprisonment ranging from five to 40 years. Lamere allegedly would have faced a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment. Before any testimony was heard. Counsel for Larson attempted to inquire about the likely prison term Poitra was facing absent her cooperation with the government. Judge Haddon sustained an objection by the prosecution and instructed the jury that the term of imprisonment was a decision for the court alone. Counsel was permitted to ask Poitra about the possibility of imprisonment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6286.htm">98-6286 -- MARION V. SLAUGHTER CO. -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR>
Answering
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0028n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted in an Ohio state court of multiple counts of child rape. That he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I. Willie Johnson was charged in a fifty five count indictment with: (1) seventeen counts of rape of a victim under the age of thirteen in violation of Ohio Rev. Johnson's case was set for trial in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas for the County of Cuyahoga. ] and the Public Defender's Office was contemporaneously appointed as appellant's legal representative. The trial court engaged Roberson in the following exchange: The Court: How long have you been Mr. Roberson: The case was assigned to the public defender's office. He was arraigned on August 7th and we received the case shortly after that. The case was assigned to another attorney at the public defender's office. She was not going to be able to. She was not going to be able to continue on the case. After he was re indicted. Another attorney was assigned to the case and this attorney also had conflicts of time problems.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2182.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant Ana Maria Meda Santos. Were on brief for appellee. Adolfo Magana was convicted by a jury of entering into a sham marriage to evade the immigration laws. His codefendant Ana Maria Meda Santos was convicted of aiding and abetting Magana's crime. 18 U.S.C. Both defendants were also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States. 18 U.S.C. Magana is a native and citizen of El Salvador who came to the United States seeking asylum. He was granted leave to remain in the country on a nonpermanent basis and to work while his application for asylum pended. Magana and Meda Santos were friends who spent a substantial amount of time together. They both were employed by the same company in Portland. As were two other persons involved in relevant events. Magana's legal status in this country was only temporary. If his application for asylum were to be rejected. Magana and Cunningham were married by a justice of the peace at Magana's apartment in the presence of Meda Santos and Ferrante.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/013.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mishann Chinn were found murdered in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Prince George's County. Dustin John Higgs was subsequently convicted by a federal jury of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. All of which are punishable by life imprisonment or death. Higgs was also convicted of three counts of using a firearm
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AD0D408876FCB2488256CCB0051639D/$file/0115565.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief. 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11465: Replace the counsel listings with the following:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1139_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnson claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need because they treated his hernia through nonsurgical means. Van Dyke Johnson was convicted of first degree murder in Illinois and was incarcerated by the Illinois Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTEzMjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-1322_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant seeks a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge erroneously disqualified a potential juror for cause and admitted consciousness of guilt testimony that was unfairly prejudicial. Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneously disqualified a potential juror for cause during the jury impaneling process. The principal challenge on appeal is to the trial court's exercise of discretion when it disqualified a prospective juror. Few prospective jurors will admit to bias. There are no fixed rules of guidance because a variety of The trial court. Judgment is one we rarely second guess. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BACKGROUND Because the legal issues presented for review are not closely related to the specifics of the underlying charges. A brief summary of the facts will suffice. Four cooperating witnesses who had been Perez's cocaine suppliers or customers testified that he was the man with whom they had conducted drug deals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9733.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We refer to Respondents collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/004082P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Including confessions that were involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda and Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Should have declared a mistrial sua 2 sponte in response to remarks made in the government's closing arguments. We hold that defendants have shown no prejudice to their case resulting from violations of the Vienna Convention. Therefore are entitled to no relief on the basis of those violations. Plutarco Tello were found guilty of (1) conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Sinisterra was found guilty on one count of criminal forfeiture. I. The events leading up to the murder which precipitated defendants' arrests are as follows. He was assisted by Héberth Andres Borja Molina (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0825p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Glass claims that he was substantially prejudiced by the district court's rulings for two reasons. Glass was prohibited from telling his side of the story. Glass claims that the excluded Eddystone evidence is relevant to the issue of pretext. We find that the error was not harmless. We will reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a new trial.[fn1] I. Glass was an activist on behalf of PECO employees. In the early 1970's he was a chief organizer in a pattern and practice race discrimination action filed in federal court against PECO. He was also an organizer and primary contact with counsel in another federal pattern and practice race discrimination suit. Glass received only one performance evaluation which was less than fully satisfactory. This occurred while he was serving as a junior technical assistant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1115.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Case and Watson were on brief for appellants. Cheryl Flax Davidson and Bob Gibbins were on brief for The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Thompson & Bowie were on brief for appellee. Hanson & DeTroy were on brief for The Defense Research Institute. Richard Poliquin was seriously injured while operating the Super Tomahawk. Charging that the injury was due to the defective design of the product. A protective 2 2 order was entered by the magistrate judge to whom discover matters had been assigned. The protective order said that Garden Way did have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0237p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Six claims were certified for appeal. The final claim (6) is that the cumulative effects of the above errors deprived Keith of his rights to effective assistance of counsel. The Ohio Supreme Court determined the facts that are quoted below. Were at Marichell's apartment in the Bucyrus Estates. Marichell was babysitting her young cousins. Momentarily diverted from a basketball game he was watching on television. Appellant appeared to have his turtleneck shirt pulled up over the bottom part of his face and even drank a glass of water through it. Appellant repeatedly scolded Marichell for using his first name when she asked what he was doing and why. You should have thought about this before your brother started ratting on people.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2149.htm">98-2149 -- U.S. V. YAZZIE -- 08/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
We have consolidated the appeals for the purpose of this disposition. Because there was evidence permitting a jury to reasonably conclude the victim was killed by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAyMDEtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0201-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That his right to a fair trial was compromised by a procedure that allowed the government to make summation comments at the conclusion of each witness's testimony. vacate the conviction. Is dyed red and may not be used in on road vehicles. Low sulfur diesel fuel is clear and may be used in on road vehicles. There is no difference in the composition of the two types of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fuel. Clear low sulfur diesel fuel is subject to a federal excise tax. While the high sulfur product is not. Twenty Four Hour prepaid the federal excise tax on some of the low sulfur diesel when purchased and was entitled to a refund of prepaid taxes for low sulfur diesel fuel later sold to nontaxable entities. One of Twenty Four Hour's customers was the Long Island Railroad (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0161p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wells's claims have merit. The district court was clearly aware of its discretion to depart downward: it noted that it had received numerous letters on Dr. Because the district court was aware of its discretion to depart downward. Its refusal to do so is not reviewable by this court. Wells also argues that this was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/94-4281.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BOWE (8/8/2000, NO. 94-4281)<BR></A><BR>
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The retrofitted HUDDELL was towed to Simplex's facility at Newington. At which point three options were available for getting from the tank onto the 'tween deck floor: (1) holding onto a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/94-4281.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BOWE (8/8/2000, NO. 94-4281)<BR></A><BR>
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1012.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Richard S. With him on the brief was Steven E. Of counsel was Henri Frederic Hibon. 496 because these patents were licensed to Cambridge under a cross licensing agreement. All of which are assigned to Institut Pasteur. Are directed to structural components of and methods of detecting the presence of two types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-14069.opn.html">STEGER V. GEN. ELEC. CO. (1/17/2003, NO. 01-14069)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002772.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (collectively Geac) is the undisputed owner of certain proprietary. The system is designed to provide valuable services to the business community at large. Millennium contains highly confidential information and trade secrets that were designed and developed by Geac at great effort and expense. Int. (collectively Grace) deliberately have infringed on Geac's copyrighted software while in the course of providing consulting and maintenance services to companies licensed by Geac to use its software. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. GEAC'S MILLENNIUM SOFTWARE Among the United States copyrighted products owned by Geac are twelve different software business applications. Trade secrets and highly confidential information are found in a wide variety of materials relating to Millennium. Millennium runs on a large mainframe computer that is typically licensed to large corporations and institutions. At issue here is the Human Resources application known as HR:M. Each of which are self contained units of code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-6403.htm">01-6403 -- MOLLETT V. MULLIN -- 11/05/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114069.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are addressed in this appeal. We will not address GE's crossappeal of the district court's allowance of statistical evidence without expert support. 2 2 1 I. Steger's Employment History Elizabeth Steger was hired by GE in 1970 and. Set up a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-14069.opn.html">STEGER V. GEN. ELEC. CO. (1/17/2003, NO. 01-14069)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1512.html">ESTEE LAUDER, INC. V. L'OREAL, S.A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEB226D1B4D7C75788256E5A00707D0C/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR>
Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-6998.man.html">TARVER V. HOPPER (3/11/1999, NO. 97-6998)<BR></A><BR>
Was convicted of murdering Hugh Kite. The district court added
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR>
Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was convicted in the state courts of Ohio on two counts of aggravated murder with firearm specification under Ohio Rev. His appeal raises four issues: (1) whether appellant was denied his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights through the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence against him at trial. (3) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence hearsay statements. (4) whether appellant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of prosecutorial 1 The defendant was found guilty of one count of murder in the death of Charles Sponhaltz with firearm specification and one count of aggravated murder of Steven Vargo with two capital specifications. 2 and 4 involved no unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the admission of the hearsay statement in issue 3 was harmless. Steven Vargo and Charles Sponhaltz were found dead on a rural road in Belmont County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-6998.man.html">TARVER V. HOPPER (3/11/1999, NO. 97-6998)<BR></A><BR>
Was convicted of murdering Hugh Kite. The district court added
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3147.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 and punitive damages against CMS totaling $1.5 million were awarded. The judge also specifically found that the trial testimony
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5311-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of 2 robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was sentenced to be executed. His motion for state post conviction relief filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 was overruled. Were affirmed in a consolidated appeal taken to the Missouri Supreme Court. Made by the prosecutor in his closing statement when he was speaking of conversations Brown had with his wife. Is the story that he told Kathy Moore strange and other worldly? Is the story that he told the police strange and other worldly? This is a strange. You have heard uncontested testimony from Ms. The point I'm trying to make is not that his statement about Janet Perkins is necessarily that his statement about the murder of Janet Perkins is evidence of his guilt in this case. It is not. It is a strange. That both of the strange stories he told to his wife and to the police on videotape are consistent with a very. As Brown suggests it should have. His Rule 29.15 counsel did not properly present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's remark.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUzMTEtcHIgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5311-pr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of several crimes. The ruling was not supported by the record. Messiah also maintains that the trial court's rulings with respect to two other Batson challenges he asserted were not supported by the record. Insurance agent Dennis Grasso was shot and killed in his Dobbs Ferry. Former professional boxer Kassan Supreme Messiah was indicted on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of robbery in the first degree. Messiah was tried by a jury in New York Supreme Court. Messiah subsequently was sentenced principally to an indeterminate term of thirty seven and a half years to life imprisonment. Which he is currently serving. This appeal concerns Messiah's claims that certain peremptory strikes the prosecutor exercised against prospective jurors during voir dire were racially motivated. Eight and ten. 3 THE COURT: Is that it? I do have a motion with regard to number two [Woodbury]. .... ASLAKSEN: I want to find out what the nonracial motivation is for the exercise of the peremptory challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/32ceecd24573adbd88256b12005f31ee/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was corrupted by the lure of drug money. He was convicted by a jury of three federal crimes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1106.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 14. P.C. were on brief for Sea 3. Murphy was on brief for Storage Tank Development Corporation. Anderson and Latti Associates were on briefs for plaintiff. Defendants were the owner of the facility. Storage Tank's and Sea 3's third party claims against Goudreau were omitted from that trial.1 On October 9. Finding him to have been damaged in the amount of $1. I. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Clausen argues that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over Storage Tank's appeal because the district court's December 31. Amended judgment was not an appealable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B6258F20B32C1A8D88256C4C007B2E71/$file/0055343.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
England is substituted for his predecessor John H. We affirm the district court's ruling that appellants' prelimitations period claims are time barred. With regard to appellants' properly presented failure to promote claims arising out of incidents occurring before and after their charges were filed. BACKGROUND Appellants are all African American. During which employees from the Engineering Department were reassigned to the Production Department. They were removed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwMDctY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5007-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case arose out of parallel investigations2 of Initial Public Offering (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C883CCB34DCECFB888256E5A00707D5D/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/c883ccb34dcecfb888256e5a00707d5d/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1772_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Four of the defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment and one received a prison term of 262 months. I. The Latin Kings are a national criminal organization (often called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32CEECD24573ADBD88256B12005F31EE/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71247C032FA0577388256AE60060B0F9/$file/9899022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procedural History Phillips was convicted on January 31. Phillips was once again sentenced to death on March 13. Two of those petitions were denied following evidentiary hearings. The other two were denied without hearings. Holding that the extraordinary delay that Phillips had already experienced in seeking review of his constitutional claims justified consideration of his guilt phase claims even though his death sentence was still under review in the California courts and would be for another five years. That he is factually innocent of capital murder. Its motion was denied on January 14. The first was denied without prejudice on October 17. The second was denied on July 13. This appeal followed.1 1 While this appeal was pending. Phillips's second death sentence was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on January 24. The conviction portion of which is now before us. So that the two parts of Phillips's habeas proceeding may be considered together and so that any future appeal will present all conviction and sentencing issues at one time. 14477 B.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It asserts that the error was harmless and that Curbelo's convictions should therefore be affirmed. Every court to have addressed the question has held to the contrary. A superseding indictment was returned on February 6. A jury of twelve was impaneled for Curbelo's trial.1 The jurors were sworn shortly after 4 o'clock that afternoon. The trial was adjourned for the day. Not his cross examination court was adjourned early because of an air conditioning problem in the courthouse. The court informed the parties that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0138p.06 Because we conclude that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice in Scott's trial or sentencing that would authorize us to issue a federal writ of habeas corpus countermanding the judgment of the Ohio courts. We are convinced that the district court erred in holding that the ground on which it granted the writ was not procedurally barred. Because we conclude that the district court correctly held that the other grounds raised by Scott's petition were either defaulted or without merit. We will reverse the issuance of the writ. Factual History The facts of the underlying crime are not in significant dispute. The following summary is largely taken from the district court's Order. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is not procedurally defaulted. Scott argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit aggravated robbery. As the only specification that made him deatheligible was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991299.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. The backdrop for this case is the competitive business of promoting and operating professional motorcycle road racing on paved oval tracks. Classes of races are typically defined by the type of motorcycles run in the race. The AMA is an Ohio not for profit corporation with its principal place of business in Westerville. Edmondson paid the AMA a sanctioning fee with respect to his races in order to advertise that his races were sanctioned by the AMA. Nor was it required to do so for any reason. 4 EDMONDSON v. All races or meets were to be designated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/982549P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1965.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnston & Sharkey was on brief for appellant Patrick S. Were on brief for appellant Patricia A. Was on brief for appellee United States. Patrick was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment. Both were assessed substantial fines. They also contend that the imposition of fines was an abuse of discretion. The Cunans were involved in a variety of financial transactions with Richard DeCato structured to launder the proceeds from DeCato's extensive marijuana and cocaine distribution business. DeCato is the ex husband of Patricia's sister. The Cunans were never involved in the sale or distribution of the drugs themselves. Contend that they were unaware that DeCato's money came from illegal activities. Patrick was the owner and president of State Scale Company. Patricia was the office manager of the business. Was responsible for keeping the books. DeCato was arrested in 1981 on charges of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. DeCato was obviously reluctant to open bank accounts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002358.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This civil rights action mounts a Fourth Amendment challenge to a practice of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office which the parties have labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2158_038.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This opinion resolves plaintiffappellee Fuesting's petition for rehearing and addresses the question of what relief the court of appeals has the power to award where there was prejudicial evidentiary error in the district court. The parties have submitted responses. Which was based on the improper admission of testimony. Should have been the grant of a new trial. We assume familiarity with our prior decision and will discuss only the relevant procedural history. Arguing that it was entitled to a new trial because (1) the district court erred in admitting Dr. (2) the jury instructions were erroneous. Pugh's testimony was scientifically unreliable and the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting the testimony. ANALYSIS No. 04 2158 The question before us is what relief. Sued ConAgra seeking a declaration that a ConAgra patent was invalid. Arguing that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find in Unitherm's favor. The Federal Circuit found that the evidence Unitherm presented was legally insufficient to support the verdict.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8F2AEBE9764448588256E300069B8B0/$file/0170724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We write en banc to clarify that the acceptance of a criminal defendant's guilty plea is a judicial act distinct from the acceptance of the plea agreement itself. The conditions under which the plea may be withdrawn are governed exclusively by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 Where a district court accepts a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court's choice to do so here was error. As is commonly the case. Although most changes were intended to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-8482.man.html">THOMAS V. WHITWORTH (3/5/1998, NO. 96-8482)<BR></A><BR>
The case was set for jury trial before the presiding district court judge. Thomas argues that a magistrate judge cannot preside over the jury selection process in a civil action where one of the parties has indicated his objection to this practice and unequivocally stated his desire to have the entire lawsuit tried before a district judge. We agree that a new trial is warranted.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Thomas is a prisoner in a Georgia state penitentiary. Appellee Ault was subsequently added as an additional Defendant. When the case was trial ready. The case was called for jury selection by the appointed magistrate judge. Thomas reiterated his objection during a sidebar colloquy with the magistrate judge:</P> <P> MAGISTRATE: You know you've got a right to have your case heard by a District Court Judge. Have a District Court Judge try your case?</P> <P> THOMAS: Yes. Sir.</P> <P> MAGISTRATE: You've also got a right to have a District Court Judge preside over jury selection in your case.... You've got a right to have him preside over everything.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50˘. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-8482.man.html">THOMAS V. WHITWORTH (3/5/1998, NO. 96-8482)<BR></A><BR>
The case was set for jury trial before the presiding district court judge. Thomas argues that a magistrate judge cannot preside over the jury selection process in a civil action where one of the parties has indicated his objection to this practice and unequivocally stated his desire to have the entire lawsuit tried before a district judge. We agree that a new trial is warranted.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Thomas is a prisoner in a Georgia state penitentiary. Appellee Ault was subsequently added as an additional Defendant. When the case was trial ready. The case was called for jury selection by the appointed magistrate judge. Thomas reiterated his objection during a sidebar colloquy with the magistrate judge:</P> <P> MAGISTRATE: You know you've got a right to have your case heard by a District Court Judge. Have a District Court Judge try your case?</P> <P> THOMAS: Yes. Sir.</P> <P> MAGISTRATE: You've also got a right to have a District Court Judge preside over jury selection in your case.... You've got a right to have him preside over everything.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1230a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Ann S. Among these is the power to remove a bank officer from his position and to bar him from further participation in the operations of a federally insured depository institution. The case was forwarded to the FDIC's Board of Directors for a final decision. The principal issue for review is Landry's argument that the FDIC's method of appointing ALJs violates the 1 In the same proceedings. Lewis's petition for review is pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. First Guaranty was in serious financial trouble. That it was still a candidate for near term failure. Found that Landry and his two associ ates were the incorporators of Pangaea Corporation. The board was misled because the plan was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1214.html">RICHARDSON-VICKS V. UPJOHN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/00-6292.htm">00-6292 -- DUCKETT V. MULLIN -- 09/04/2002<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that Duckett is not entitled to habeas relief on any of these claims. John Howard was found dead in his apartment in Oklahoma City. His hands and feet were bound with a wire hanger. There were blood stains and spatters throughout the apartment. Howard's keys and car were missing. Howard picked up Duckett an escapee from prison who had been convicted of robbery by force while Duckett was hitchhiking on an interstate in Oklahoma City. Duckett was arrested in Clear Creek. Howard was on his feet and breathing. Noted that <p> [the victim's] ankle was broken and he had been struck at <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951586P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Elliott was convicted of seven counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1988 & Supp. Who is black. Was appointed a part time special assistant attorney general to represent the Second Injury Fund (the Fund) and the State of Missouri in workers' compensation cases where either the Fund or the state was being sued. related injury. the In limited circumstances. The Fund provides additional The goal of the Fund is to encourage employers to hire the compensation to previously compensated employees who suffer a second jobpartially disabled by limiting the employer's liability in the event that employee
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1565.html">KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., ET AL. V. TURN-KEY-TECH, LLC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Frank L. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Patricia A. Shackelford</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David R. <span class=SpellE>Fairbairn</span></u>. 268 (the 268 patent ) are invalid as anticipated and obvious and (2) that the 268 patent is not infringed by taillights produced by Koito Manufacturing Co. The district court partially granted Turn Key s motion for a JMOL by overturning the jury s finding that <u>all</u> 38 claims of the 268 patent are invalid for lack of enablement. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1345p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His request was reduced by the district court by more than eighty percent. Five of the nine counts were dismissed on summary judgment in June 1993. Judgment was entered for Mr. Washington was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0053p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(Michael Thompkins elected to have the trial judge decide his fate.). Two events pertaining to the jury's deliberations are significant to this appeal. Who was absent during the start of the reinstructions. Which was lengthier than the original instructions and included several examples. As she was waiting outside for someone to pick her up. A man walked past her and said he was going to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117249op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We now remand the case to the Tax Court with the following instructions: (1) The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5135.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Sims died when the speeding car he was driving sailed off a rural road. A jury found the death was accidental and awarded Mrs. The district court refused to admit evidence that would have been inadmissible in state court. He was still quite intoxicated when the couple returned home that evening to an unkempt kitchen. She told the 911 operator that Sims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021105.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a case in which we affirm the disbarment of an attorney. The motion charged that these violations occurred while Morrissey was on probation. Finding Those rules have been renumbered and slightly. Or using any false document making a false statement. 1 IN RE: MORRISSEY 3 that Morrissey had been adjudged to have violated the conditions of his probation by violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and condition no. 3 of the terms of his probation which required that he should
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This matter is an appeal and a cross appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1298.html">THE CARBORUNDUM CO. V. MOLTEN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2303.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Was on brief for appellee. *Of the Eleventh Circuit. Daniel Peterson was arrested in Providence. Newman was the officer in charge of the cell block where Peterson was detained. Peterson put up mild resis tance and his wrists were handcuffed to the cell bars. Peterson was beaten and kicked in the stomach and head by appellant. Newman was indicted. He con tends that he was entitled to a new trial due to juror inatten tiveness. MacDonald's testimony was offered to support Newman's testimony that he had handcuffed Peterson to the third bar of the 4 cell and not to the first bar as Peterson testified. Who claimed to have seen Peterson's cuffed hands protruding through the bars during the assault. The evidence demonstrated that Greene could have seen Peterson's hands only if they were cuffed to the first bar. Is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Although there are no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1292.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. Alleging that he was denied due process by being forced to sit in a prisoner's dock during trial and that the trial court gave erroneous instructions to the jury on the malice element of first degree murder and the reasonable doubt standard. Donald Rimer was the co owner and construction supervisor of a project on which Albert Moore. Moore told a friend that he was going to kill Rimer and asked to borrow a lug wrench. The evidence at trial also showed that Moore went to Rimer's townhouse later that morning and struck Rimer in the head several times with a blunt object while he was sleeping. Moore was indicted for Rimer's murder in January 1976 and was tried before a jury in Essex Superior Court. The SJC described the prisoner's dock as follows: Most court rooms used for criminal sessions in the Commonwealth are equipped with a dock. The dock is open at the top. So that the upper torso of a seated person is visible. Said that he was bothered by the dock's potential effect on the jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1457p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal offers the en banc court the opportunity to attempt to clarify the quantum and nature of evidence that will permit a jury to find that an employer engaged in impermissible employment discrimination. Who had been an employee of the Hotel du Pont since 1979 and was at the time her employment ceased one of the Head Captains of the hotel's Green Room. That she was not qualified for the position of Manager of Restaurants and that she had not applied for the position. Were pretexts for discrimination. The court concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1328.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 11 delete the second
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting in part petitioner appellee/cross appellant Clifford Smith's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We will vacate the judgment of the district court in part. Smith was convicted offirst degree murder. A third eyewitness identified the car in which Smith and Alston were traveling just after the robbery. Which was later found at the homes of Alston. Items taken from the three robbery victims were later found at the homes of Barrow and Yancey. Although there was evidence that both Alston and Smith carried handguns that day. He wanted the ring
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/98-5243.htm">98-5243 -- STATE BANK & TRUST V. FIRST STATE BANK OF TEXAS -- 12/20/2000<BR></A><BR>
The trial court granted summary judgment to State Bank on its claims and in a non jury trial held that State Bank was not liable on any of Bank of Texas's counterclaims. Only Bank of Texas's counterclaims are at issue. Payment was accomplished by means of a documentary draft. Once a draft was received by the buyer's bank. The buyer was required to verify the draft. Determine whether the title documentation was in order. Instruct the bank either to pay the draft or to return the draft unpaid. <p> At issue in this appeal are seven documentary drafts drawn on Ventura's account and presented by Bank of Texas to State Bank for payment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1067.html">KEY PHARM V. HERCON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022056.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As is required by 42 U.S.C.A. § 292f(g) (West 2003). The parties agree that the facts of this case are undisputed. Smitley was 47 years old. Positions in The Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation did not participate in the adversary proceeding because ECMC is its successor in interest. 2 The record indicates that Smitley paid approximately $10. Smitley's wife was 45 years old. The children have health insurance through the State. Smitley and his wife do not have health insurance. Smitley stated the following basis for his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1649p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<u>Circuit Judge</u>. <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0106p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) the district court erred in denying the motion for new trial because the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. All three CN IC employees are responsible for the safety of the crew and passersby. While the subsequent events are in dispute. It is uncontroverted that Rush. The matter proceeded to trial whereby the parties presented widely divergent References to the trial transcript will hereinafter be cited as (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0411p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal of right. Assistance of counsel is constitutionally required at both stages. 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (holding that a state is required to provide counsel to an indigent defendant on appeal as of right). Indigent defendants have no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel. 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (holding that there is no federal constitutional right to counsel for indigent prisoners seeking state postconviction relief). Petitioner Fernando Lopez argued that the state courts' denial of appointed counsel to help him prepare his 26(B) application violated his constitutional right to assistance of counsel because the 26(B) procedure is part of the initial direct appeal as of right. 355 F.3d 931 (6th Cir.) (holding that the Ohio Court of Appeals' decision that the petitioner was not entitled to a Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel for filing an application to reopen his direct appeal was not contrary to clearly established federal law). Because panels of this court have split over the correct characterization of the rule.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/057FBA801ED3299C8825701300165871/$file/0215866.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At 399 F.3d 1022. Substitute the following paragraph: The final question is whether admission of Autumn's statement
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2042.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for Defendant Appellant. <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1886E09C54A4E27388256FB0005803BA/$file/0215866.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose interview with a detective was admitted as key evidence. The Court definitively held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1174.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Sheldon Yefsky was convicted by a jury of a dual object conspiracy. The Greater Boston Police Council (GBPC) was formed in the early 1960s as a mutual aid society for various metropolitan area law enforcement agencies. A primary concern of the GBPC was the inability of the member police departments to communicate with each other by radio. Of which Yefsky is president. CES was awarded a bid contract of $31. Which was available at a discount through a GBPC collective purchase contract. BAPERN was fully operational. Coogan was. Were charged with numerous criminal violations stemming from their involvement in the BAPERN project. The first scheme charged was a conspiracy involving all four defendants (Count 1). The goals of the conspiracy were to pay Coogan kickbacks for sending engineering work to CES and to help him hide that income from the IRS. The kickbacks were the payments ITS made to Coogan. The government explained that the kickbacks were financed by charging GBPC members for engineering services that were unnecessary or never were performed or by overcharging for work actually done.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049003p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted by a Delaware jury 2 of. His direct appeals and post conviction claims in state court were unsuccessful. (All city or town references are in Delaware.). Mannon's body was discovered along a road in a deserted area of East Wilmington at approximately 11:00 a.m. on January 12. He was found lying on his back with his legs crossed and the top of his head shattered. Mannon's pockets were turned inside out. His identification cards were scattered nearby. A broken ballpeen hammer handle rested a few feet away from his body and the head of that hammer was located behind a nearby fence along the road. Nelson Shelton and Gibbons were stopped by New Castle County police later that morning. He was taken to police headquarters and found to be in possession of two gold rings that were Mannon's.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/98-8930.man.html">FUGATE V. HEAD (8/16/2001, NO. 98-8930)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI2MDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2608_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioners contend that during jury selection in the 1986 trial in which they were convicted of second degree murder. Approximately six and a half years after the trial presided over by a successor to the retired judge who had presided at trial the parties were denied the opportunity to cross examine the opposing parties' witnesses. The petitioners assert that their petitions should be granted because this procedure resulted in a decision that was contrary to Supreme Court law and based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We conclude that the state court's decision to deny the petitioners the opportunity to cross examine their opponent's witnesses in the petitioners' Batson hearing was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and did not result in an unreasonable determination of the facts. The presumption of correctness to which they are entitled. We think that the court's conclusion that the defendants did not meet their burden of proving that the prosecution's race neutral explanations were a pretext for purposeful discrimination was reasonable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10D55BB266D4B9F8882571E10000B7AA/$file/0555695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It asserts that the claim on which relief was granted was unexhausted and that the state court's rejection of 10684 REYNOSO v. GIURBINO the claim was reasonable. We conclude that Reynoso's claim was properly exhausted and that. Jyotsna Prajapati was shot once in the head and died from her wounds shortly afterwards. Prajapati was working alone behind the counter of the Top Produce Market. Hinojosa was questioned at Centinela State Prison where he was serving a sentence for burglary. Believed that the case was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314784.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was incarcerated at the Monroe County Detention Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are faced with the question of whether to vacate Hassine's conviction by granting his petition for habeas relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Hassine contends that relief is warranted because the state prosecutor sought to use his post arrest silence for impeachment purposes at trial in violation of the due process principles established in Doyle v. It concluded that any constitutional error was harmless under the standard announced in Brecht v. We also agree that Brecht is the proper standard to apply on collateral review. Because we agree further that the Doyle violation was harmless under Brecht. We will affirm. The store was financed by Hassine's family. Kellet discovered that the drugs were of inferior quality and he became enraged. Was present. She
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/92-6813.man.html">HORSLEY V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Horsley v. Horsley was convicted and sentenced to death in Monroe County. Alabama for the capital offense of robbery in which the victim is intentionally killed. Ala.Code
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/991134P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Cochran Gardens is a low income housing project located in St. One of the officers hired by Cochran Gardens to supplement its security forces was Guinn Kelly. All of whom were also St. Turner and Givens were also partners in the intelligence division of the St. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 The scheme was uncovered in the Spring of 1994. The district court declared a mistrial with respect to all of the defendants when it appeared that Givens's attorney might have to testify to impeach a government witness. We concluded that although a mistrial was manifestly necessary with respect to Givens because it was his attorney who might have to testify. There was no manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial with respect to Turner and Kelly. A superseding indictment was filed against Turner and Kelly. Givens testified that the men were required to be at Cochran Gardens at approximately 10 p.m. That requirement often conflicted with their police duties because they were frequently assigned to work the 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. shift.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11575F252DF695A588256FBA0006EA63/$file/0316849.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was twice denied a promotion to the position of Production Resource Manager at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (hereinafter. Judgment was entered against Obrey. The Pearl Harbor Shipyard is one of four Navy shipyards operated by the Navy organizational unit. The applicants were rated in three categories. Obrey was 2612 OBREY v. The PRM position was subsequently offered to Ernest Chamberlain in the first round of hiring. Both of whom are Caucasian males and both of whom declined the offer. Recruitment was then cancelled. The Navy argues that the exclusion was proper but that. The error was harmless. We find that the district court's decision excluding this evidence was an abuse of discretion as to all. We further conclude that the error was not harmless. The hiring practice evidence at issue was compiled through discovery and included the hiring history of the Pearl Harbor Shipyard for the period 19992002. Dannemiller's report concludes that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1785_030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the argument was made in good faith. Although the court overruled the defendant's OE The opinion is hereby amended to include the inadvertently omitted concurrence by Judge Bauer. 2 No. 05 1785 objection in the heat of the closing arguments. The court later determined that the argument was improper and likely had a substantial effect on the verdict in this very close case. Was Van Eyl's co defendant. FMAC was in the business of lending money at above market interest rates to people with problematic credit histories so that they could purchase cars. The company's primary asset was its accounts receivable. Not all of the customer accounts were current at any given time. With some customers being so late in their payments that their accounts were charged off as a loss. Two important aspects of FMAC's business were collections and repossessions. Accounts receivable were tracked by a computer system called Norwest. Which was run by an outside contractor. The Norwest system grouped delinquent accounts into thirty day increments (called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2073.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mann with whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief for appellant Joseph Cassiere. Fishman & Leonard were on brief for appellant Janet Dolber. Was on brief for appellee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116901.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Jerry Paul Henderson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-2212.htm">96-2212 -- HOBBS V. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. -- 11/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
Perez held what was later determined to be a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4222.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were indicted on charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud. The alleged fraud involved billing for services that were not provided (ghost billing). Overstating what services were provided (upcoding). After one of the mail fraud counts was dismissed. A new trial was ordered for all but these two counts. Mitrione was sentenced to a term of 23 months and DeVore to 15 months. Restitution for each was set at $11. We will mention only those that have arguable merit. Are presented in the light most favorable to the verdict. Who was his assistant at the time. CPTs are listed in a book of codes used for medical billing which is published by the American Medical Association. The handbook for physicians provided: The provision of psychiatric services is limited . . . and must be personally provided by the physician who submits charges. Etc. are not reimbursable. Is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410325.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15) denying Brown the right to be present and to cross examine witnesses after this Court remanded the case for construction of the record. 2 1 The facts of this tragic case are straightforward and are taken from the testimony of the trial witnesses and from the last of Brown's three confessions. Which was recorded and presented to the jury by audiotape. Was a part time postmistress in the small town of Fleming. She was working in the Fleming Post Office on the morning of November 30. When she was stabbed to death. Was working in the Post Office with Gaglia between 8:00 a.m. and about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. that day. As he was exiting the Post Office. Washington heard the man say his name was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F136ED29BECB29788257192004F2478/$file/0435998.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. Facts1 Cal Brown is not a nice man. Schnell was able to call the front desk and summon the police. Brown was tried in Washington. Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0462a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davis was sentenced to multiple concurrent life sentences. Davis sought to have witness Damaris Jourdan testify as to Jourdan's prior statements. Straub Page 2 the court that Jourdan was a suspect and should consult with a lawyer before testifying. The court stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="680"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32DF76ED079F126488256FDC0083C086/$file/0315745.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming she was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dunbar was convicted by jury of one count of distribution of cocaine base and two counts of distribution of heroin. If his conviction is upheld. Dunbar argues that his sentence should be vacated because the district court erred by including fifty six grams of cocaine base in the calculation of his sentence based upon evidence that was not sufficiently reliable. The task force received a tip from a confidential informant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6085.htm">01-6085 -- GILBERT V. MULLIN -- 09/03/2002<BR></A><BR>
2253(c) with respect to three of his claims of legal error: (1) that his right to a fair trial was violated by a coerced verdict at the sentencing stage of the trial. (2) that he was improperly denied his request for a competency evaluation in state court. (3) that there was insufficient factual support for the jury's finding of the existence of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1552p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brought suit against Scott Paper Company claiming that he was a victim of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scott contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Woodson was terminated in retaliation for filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Mir Aimal Kasi was convicted by a Virginia state court jury of capital murder. Related firearm charges arising out of the slaying of two Central Intelligence Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1260.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the Fifth Circuit. Was not allowed under R.I. P. 50(a)(1) provides: If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard with respect to an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue. Plaintiff Cyntha Resare was hired by defendant Raytheon Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0415p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robinson was charged in a six count second superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine (Count One). Ronald Brady also were named in the Count One conspiracy charge. Barnes was named in the * The Honorable Gerald E. Robinson was sentenced in absentia on November 27. Robinson was also sentenced to 60 months imprisonment as to each of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/92-2872.amd.html">UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (2/23/1998, NO. 92-2872)<BR></A><BR>
All convictions and sentences WILL BE REVERSED AND VACATED.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9834.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bobby Lee Harris was convicted of first degree murder. Harris was sentenced to death for his murder conviction and sentenced to 100 years imprisonment for the remaining convictions. Where Harris is incarcerated. Joe Simpson were employed by the victim. The plan was for the defendant to restrain Redd while Simpson bound him. They were then going to rob him and leave him on the shore. Redd was robbed of his wallet containing approximately $80.00 and of his keys. Then was either thrown from the boat or placed on a pile of oyster shells. As the defendant and Simpson were returning to the dock around 2:30 a.m. They were stopped by a game warden and cited for traveling without running lights. The victim was stabbed three times in the back. He was found on a pile of oyster shells along Bear's Inlet around 6:15 a.m. He was transported to the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune and died on the operating table around noon. The cause of death was exsanguination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/024386p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue on appeal is whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/92-2872.amd.html">UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (2/23/1998, NO. 92-2872)<BR></A><BR>
All convictions and sentences WILL BE REVERSED AND VACATED.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043702p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where the suit was litigated. Or that local counsel were unwilling to take on the litigation. Then it will be entitled to compensation based on prevailing rates in the community in which its attorneys practice. We are satisfied that the District Court's finding that ICO had satisfied the second exception was not clearly erroneous. We will therefore affirm the District Court's decision to award compensation based on prevailing market rates in Washington. We find that ICO is entitled to compensation for the travel time of its attorneys as well as the reasonable fees of its local counsel. We nonetheless conclude that the District Court's finding in this regard was not clearly erroneous. We will affirm the District Court's determination of the appropriate hourly rates. We agree that the District Court's review was inadequate. Hence we will vacate those aspects of the award challenged by Honeywell. We also agree that the fee request was excessive. We conclude that the District Court's decision to do so was not an abuse of discretion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1960_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
100 in companion care services that were never provided. The defendants were indicted and ultimately convicted of two counts of wire fraud. That variance was harmless. We also affirm on Count Two because there was ample evidence that payment instructions were transmitted in August 2002. Because Hines VA did not have sufficient resources to provide that level of care. Hines VA then told her she would have to locate appropriate companion care services on her own. Their agreement was memorialized in a contract prepared by Ratliff White. The individuals identified on the time sheets were never employed by CHHS and no services were ever performed. Ratliff White once confided that some of the names on the time sheets were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1463.html">NOBELPHARMA V. IMPLANT INNOVATIONS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/94-8079.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLER<BR></A><BR>
Richard Dean Miller was indicted in the District of Wyoming. No evidence was offered that Mr. The only overt acts alleged in Wyoming were acts by Mike Davis. This request was also denied. The jury instructions did contain the statement:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DCAD01A240C006E8825703B00829FE8/$file/0250495.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were charged with omitting assets from and making false statements in their joint petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. The Bussells were indicted in 2000 for omitting from their joint bankruptcy petition their ownership of a fourunit condominium located in Park City. The Bussells moved to dismiss certain of the charges on the ground that the questions posed by the bankruptcy forms were fundamentally ambiguous. Their motion was denied. Was hardfought and lengthy. John fell to his death from his hotel room.1 After being instructed that the case against John was no longer before them. Letantia was ultimately convicted of six counts (one count of conspiracy. For which she was jointly and severally liable with attorneys Sherman and Beaudry. The district court expressed concern that the jury was awaiting responses on two questions regarding counts against John and was likely to hear of John's death through the media. Letantia argues that there is no evidence clearly establishing that John took his own life.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-6072.htm">00-6072 -- BLACK V. M & W GEAR CO. -- 11/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was required to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
If there is a right of access. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B49D3074CE2937E488256E5A00707C3E/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F75C846040C51E0688256EBE004D32BB/$file/0217423.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paul Revere paid Hangarter benefits for an eleven month period and then terminated her benefits based upon the opinion of its medical examiners and claim investigators that Hangarter was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-15019.man.html">TOOLE V. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. (12/14/2000, NO. 99-15019)<BR></A><BR>
The implants were replaced. Toole discovered a lump in her breast and was forced to undergo the first of multiple surgical procedures to remove what turned out to be silicone granulomas.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB8207DBB4B0768C88256A4F005B6B5E/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: Slip opinion page 3775. Modify the last sentence of the second full paragraph to read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-15019.man.html">TOOLE V. BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP. (12/14/2000, NO. 99-15019)<BR></A><BR>
The implants were replaced. Toole discovered a lump in her breast and was forced to undergo the first of multiple surgical procedures to remove what turned out to be silicone granulomas.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/750D9B29738F3E6E88256E5A00707B4E/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: Slip opinion page 3775. Modify the last sentence of the second full paragraph to read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994737A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the last slash in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/833BB21E77B4E35D88256AA3005AD73C/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ford claimed that it was unaware prior to trial as to the nature of Syson's testimony. Syson stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1870.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on briefs for plaintiff. Mason and Ropes & Gray were on briefs for defendants. We hope that this opinion will bring the matter to a close. Narrow event is enough. The company is a small but successful maker of specialty papers of various kinds. Was given a small increase. Was also involved in two different ventures with his sons. He was discharged in June 1986 a few weeks before his rights under the company pension plan would otherwise have vested. Were for wrongful deprivation of property. That he had been fired on account of his age he was replaced with a younger man and to prevent the vesting of his pension. The gravamen of the remaining counts was that he had been 1ADEA is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Et seq. and ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The ERISA award was $100. The fraud award for the allegedly promised stock was about $315. Biggins was also awarded just under $267. Only nominal damages were awarded. Because the jury found that the age discrimination was willful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A281B2F6192D65C088256A1C005CEAAA/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dillard was convicted of one felony count of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was sitting on the porch of the house that she shared with Dil 1 The facts are taken from the opinion by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. Dillard was not at home. Dillard was charged with: (1) one felony count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant. The state trial court dismissed the two felony counts of assault with a firearm after defense counsel argued that those charges were unsupported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2026.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McCormick and Orlando & Associates were on brief. P.C. were on brief. The linchpin of this appeal is whether the district court lawfully precluded certain expert testimony which Thibeault hoped to introduce at trial. This issue is of paramount importance because. The press was equipped with a foot switch manufactured by Square D. A pretrial conference was held. There was not a peep of protest or even an inquiry from any of the parties. The primary basis for this motion was that Thibeault's opposition to the motion for summary judgment intimated a shift in the prevailing winds. Square D contended that Thibeault was belatedly attempting to convert the case's focus from electrical malfunction. It was settled. There are two issues on appeal. That is. Although the issues are interrelated. Appellant's lament that summary judgment was premature because he was not afforded sufficient time for discovery is 4 idle. There is. That is the purpose of the sponge. Thirty three months is more than enough time to conduct pretrial discovery in a run of the mill product liability action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted in his second jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for embezzlement and theft of labor union assets. Barnwell was indicted along with four others: Edwin Nyhus. Williamson and Jackson were both charged with making false statements to federal agents. Williamson was employed as the personal secretary to William Mabry. She was the highest paid clerical employee of the MRCC. Although she was employed by the Union. She was not a member. Was a Business Agent with a different union. Which were ordered to specification. Who was the Director of the MRCC and in charge of the residential carpentry local. Was too sick to continue with the trial. The juror responded that he was planning to leave on Sunday (three days from the start of jury deliberations). The judge advised the jury that they would have to work late hours and through the weekend to accommodate the vacation plans of the juror. Intercepted a telephone call using a wiretap authorized by the judge in the instant case between two individuals who were the subject of an investigation that the Government contends had been ongoing for nearly fifteen years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All six defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap. Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the 924(c)(1) count. We will conclude that venue was improper in New Jersey and. We will reverse Moreno's conviction under 4 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). We will affirm the defendants' convictions on all other counts. Lopez was arrested and the fourteen kilos of cocaine were seized. Montalvo told Avendano that the seizure of the fourteen kilos and the legal fees were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943563.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. Two appellants were also convicted of money laundering. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating: Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Chief among the conditions 2 was the pre sale of twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom that Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so. 3 Without Roome's twenty contracts. The joint venture did not have enough pre sales to satisfy the conditions set by Freedom for the financing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/944001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1974. when he was 48 years old. Judged his work to be satisfactory and noted that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943563.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants were convicted of conspiracy and bank fraud. appellants were also convicted of money laundering. following sentence. Larrison were partners in a joint venture to develop a real estate project in Pinellas County. Twitty wrote Freedom stating: Thirty nine (39) out of 42 units are presently contracted for. Only if Twitty Chief and among the the others promised was to the meet certain of conditions. conditions pre sale twenty one of the proposed forty two condominiums in binding. The evidence at trial was that Roome and Feldman were not bona fide purchasers. Each was induced to sign purchase agreements for condominiums. Was told that they would never have to close on the contracts. They were told that the joint venture would arrange. They were each rewarded with a discount toward the purchase of a $120. Twitty assured Freedom Roome actually was planning to close on her twenty condominiums and that she had the financial ability to do so. The joint venture did not have enough pre sales to satisfy the conditions set by Freedom for the financing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52F840BF69A5E89F88257077004FB57F/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962680.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was employed by Appellant. Until he was demoted to the position of night maintenance worker following his return from a lengthy medical leave. Cline was fired for allegedly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/99-6008.man.html">SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. V. LAND, CULLMAN COUNTY (12/16/1999, NO. 99-6008)<BR></A><BR>
Is an interstate natural gas pipeline company serving the southeastern United States. Extension of the pipeline requires the use of a series of 50 foot wide permanent easements that will cross some 500 tracts of land in seven Alabama counties. This appeal involves the process by which
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/99-6008.man.html">SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO. V. LAND, CULLMAN COUNTY (12/16/1999, NO. 99-6008)<BR></A><BR>
Is an interstate natural gas pipeline company serving the southeastern United States. Extension of the pipeline requires the use of a series of 50 foot wide permanent easements that will cross some 500 tracts of land in seven Alabama counties. This appeal involves the process by which
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-1535.htm">95-1535 -- DEMAREST V. PRICE -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR>
Demarest's petition was filed before the AEDPA's effective date. <u>See</u> <u>Lindh v. Demarest can establish either that there was cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the violation of federal law. Hyams's head was wrapped in a bathrobe and there were puncture wounds around his neck and collarbone. Demarest was distraught and in shock. He was then transferred to the psychiatric ward of another hospital. Demarest was released from the psychiatric ward on February 11. Demarest was taken back to the hospital's psychiatric ward. Was a contrived reaction intended to divert suspicion. <p> At trial. Hyams was murdered by a tall. Hyams's fingernails could not have come from Mr. A blood expert testified that there was no evidence that blood had been transferred between Mr. Demarest hitting his hands on the gravel and would have remembered seeing it. She noticed that his right hand was swollen and there was a small amount of blood on his cuticles. Demarest's hands were already scratched from the struggle with Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: p.48. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for defendants. Berry & Howard were on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the District of Maine. This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court in an action brought by a number of foreign reinsurance syndicates. At issue are reinsurance contracts (or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/149A0D8A460C27D888256E5A00707AB9/$file/9956345.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dillard was convicted of one felony count of inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was sitting on the porch of the house that she shared with Dil 1 The facts are taken from the opinion by the California Court of Appeal for the Second District. Dillard was not at home. Dillard was charged with: (1) one felony count of willful infliction of corporal injury upon a cohabitant. The state trial court dismissed the two felony counts of assault with a firearm after defense counsel argued that those charges were unsupported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gutkoski were on brief for appellants. Johnston were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a jury verdict of no liability in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff appellant is Richard K. Defendants appellees are Benjamin Mahlab. We address only one of the three issues raised by appellant because it is dispositive. Excerpts from the letters were allowed in evidence. Were the parents of two children: Brian. Klonoski was born and raised in Connecticut. Klonoski was employed by Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital as a cardiologist. She was sent home in the afternoon. Klonoski's death she was delivered of a healthy baby girl. Klonoski was in San Diego at a medical meeting of cardiologists on Saturday. He was notified late Saturday of his wife's admission to the hospital. His wife was comatose and did not recognize him. PRETRIAL DISCOVERY As is usual in a well prepared medical malpractice case. As is also usual. The address to which her letters (the evidence in dispute) were sent. To the extent defendants can more persuasively support their assertion that such a list (or the names of particular people which would otherwise appear on such a list) is protected by the work product doctrine (i.e.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1656p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All six <p>defendants were convicted by a jury in the United States <p>District Court for the District of New Jersey of kidnapping <p>and conspiracy to kidnap. <p>and Quinones were also convicted of conspiracy to <p>distribute and possess cocaine. Moreno was convicted of using and <p>carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. We will discuss each of these <p>challenges in turn. Focusing in more detail on Moreno's <p>claim that venue in New Jersey was improper to try the <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants cross appellees are California Smoothie International. We sometimes will refer to CSI and CSLC singularly as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5NTMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3953-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. DECREED that the judgments of conviction are AFFIRMED. Except that the case is remanded solely for consideration of whether to modify Bacanovic's sentence. The District Court decided not to modify the sentence that was imposed on July 16. Procedural history Defendants Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic were charged in Superseding Indictment S1 03 Cr. 717 with offenses that arose from their communications to government investigators who were probing trading activity of ImClone Systems. Five months of which were to be served in home confinement. Stewart and Bacanovic were ordered to pay fines of $30. The stays were subsequently vacated and amended judgments of conviction were entered as to Stewart on September 22. Concluding that it would have imposed the same sentence even if the Sentencing Guidelines had not been mandatory at the time of sentencing. His application is granted. Was attempting to sell all of his own shares in the company. Stewart was interviewed twice. To demonstrate that the story Defendants told to investigators was a cover up of the events of December 27th.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913479.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. I. ISSUES FOR REVIEW As this appeal was initiated after April 24. It is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Are worthy of a COA. Whether Appellant's right to due process was denied by the prosecutor's alleged failure to disclose exculpatory material. Whether Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Appellant's claims under this issue are based on Brady v. Appellant alleges the following items were material and withheld by the prosecution: (1) a portion of a summary of Appellant's interview with a state psychologist. While Appellant was incarcerated. Appellant's claims under this issue are based on Strickland v. Appellant argues (in 3 2 1 whether Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and is not entitled to a COA.3 For the third issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7DCEF53D22C65A5882570AD0050FD8E/$file/0299002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a sixty six year old paraplegic on California's death row. Daniels was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the shooting deaths of police officers Dennis Doty and Phil Trust. Daniels was sentenced to death on January 31. It is necessary to first review the events surrounding a bank robbery Daniels committed in 1980. Daniels was shot nine times by police officers. Daniels was rendered a paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. On the same day Daniels was sentenced. Although Daniels's physical distress was somewhat lessened. Roth was disturbed by Daniels's psychological condition and expression of suicidal thoughts. Daniels was released on bond. He was beaten. Daniels was ordered to surrender to custody. A warrant was issued for his arrest. Officers Doty and Trust were sent to arrest Daniels at the residence of James Cornish. They were shown to Daniels's bedroom by his caretaker. Cornish's infant son were in the house at the time. While Ross was assisting Daniels with getting dressed. Doty was lying on the floor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/66F32EE4F51E77F988256F150075272B/$file/0199014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. The mandate shall not issue until it is determined whether. Circuit Judge: Larry David Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. As they were driving. She first tried to end his advances by telling him she was a lesbian. She was finally able to persuade him to stop by telling him that she would have sex with him in a motel in town. While Davis was pumping gas. Saying that she was returning to New York within days. When asked what he was doing. It was there that he met Dawn Holman. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the store smoking marijuana when a man. That woman was Dawn Holman. Holman's body was found around 5 a.m. by a greenskeeper at a nearby golf course. Her car was partially in a ditch about 265 feet from her body. The front passenger door was heavily damaged. Appeared to have hit a nearby telephone pole. The medical examiner testified that Holman's body showed evidence of sexual assault: her body was found with her bra pulled down below her chest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013083.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The centerpiece of the government's case in chief was its evidence implicating the remaining eleven defendants in the conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine alleged in Count 2. The overall thrust of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony was that Williams and Casado. Their mother Susan Hall Gibson 2 Lenard Brown was Leonard Brown's twin brother. We refer to all defendants by their last names except for the Brown twins and Malcolm and Bernard Shaw. 4 were all friends of Williams from the Miami neighborhoods of Carol City. Baptiste was Casado's close friend and business partner. Charlton Darces was a Port of Miami longshoreman who. The government's case was also replete with evidence. The overt acts cited are as follows: 1. To an individual who was later arrested in St. A portion of which was later seized by authorities. Approximately two and one half kilograms of crack which remained from this crack were seized by law enforcement authorities in West Palm Beach. A portion of which was later seized by law enforcement authorities on March 6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-6146.htm">02-6146 -- ALLEN V. MULLIN -- 05/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR>
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/009004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the District Court's orders as to all claims regarding the guilt phase of Marshall's trial. We will remand for further evidentiary development as to his claim that his attorney was ineffective in the penalty phase. Was convicted and sentenced to death in 1986 for having hired someone to murder his wife. Maria and her husband both were examined by a physician to qualify for an additional insurance policy. Marshall was hit on the head and Maria was fatally shot. We will reprise the facts at some length as they provide a necessary background for understanding much of our analysis. Marshall mentioned that he was seeking an out of town investigator to track missing casino winnings that he had given to his wife. Since Toms River was a small community where news traveled quickly. Marshall's only contact with McKinnon was through telephoning Cumber both at home and at the hardware store. McKinnon had a person whose name really was Jimmy Davis sign for the money each time. The numerous telephone conversations were.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.* *This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962599.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court set aside the jury's verdict against Jubal Register for using a firearm This decision is rendered by a quorum. We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/989009.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case. Riley pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and was tried by jury in Kent County Superior Court in December 1982. He was represented by appointed counsel. Riley placed a quart bottle of beer on the counter and announced that the store was being robbed. The prosecution intr oduced evidence that Riley's fingerprints were found on the bottle of beer that had been placed on the counter. Riley took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was in Philadelphia with his mother celebrating her birthday when the robbery occurred. Although Riley's mother was present in court at the beginning of the trial. No other alibi witnesses were presented. The penalty phase of the trial was held. After Riley was sentenced on the remaining counts for which he had been convicted. This claim is procedurally barred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4403.opa.html">WATTS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watts v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> A habeas petitioner contends that his due process rights were infringed when he was tried and convicted in state court for murder while incompetent to stand trial. Carl Eugene Watts was tried in Florida state court and convicted by a jury of second degree murder. Watts was asleep through much of the five day trial.<p> On the first day of trial. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/032989P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael appeals his conviction on numerous grounds: (1) the district court should not have admitted his state court testimony at trial. (5) the evidence was insufficient to convict him. I. Facts The following facts are based on the record evidence. With disputed questions of fact deemed to have been resolved by the jury in a manner that supports its verdict. Anne was interviewed by investigating police officers. Anne was the couple's maid of honor. The couple was particularly concerned that Jamie would be sentenced to a lengthy prison term if convicted. As she was then on probation for another offense. Michael and Jamie were charged with robbery. Anne's body was found near a rural farmhouse outside of Moorhead. She had been shot in the head and her throat was cut. Eight days after Anne was reported missing. Michael entered a plea of guilty to the staged robbery and was sentenced to sixty days' confinement. Jamie was found guilty by a jury. 2 On September 7. Over a year after Anne's body was found. Michael's parents told the police that they had received a telephone call from Michael who claimed to have read the details of Anne's murder in one of Jamie's diaries.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-5008.htm">03-5008 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 09/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015858.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was constitutionally firm. I. The facts surrounding the death of Lathen Aaron Dodd are undisputed. Any patrons who were not already lying down were forced to the ground. The perpetrators continued to abuse them physically patrons were 2 hit on the head. Once all of the customers were secured on the ground. As the patrons were being robbed of their possessions. Demanded to know who the owner of the bar was. This robber demanded to know where the rest of the money was. When he was told that there was no more money. The patrons were forced to crawl to the restroom at the back of the bar. While they were on the way to the bathroom. More shots were fired. Dodd was then taken to the hospital. The cause of death was bleeding that resulted from a gunshot wound to the chest and abdomen. 3 A. Attorney Herbert Massie was appointed to represent Brownlee. His representation ended when Massie was suspended from the practice of law for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954403.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: A habeas petitioner contends that his due process rights were infringed when he was tried and convicted in state court for murder while incompetent to stand trial. Carl Eugene Watts was tried in Florida state court and convicted by a jury of second degree murder. through much of the five day trial. The judge recorded his initial observation of Watts's behavior:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/02-3015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appointed 3 by the court for Samuel Carson at the time the brief was filed. Were on the joint brief. Assistant United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. I. Facts This case is a story of mayhem and disorder in and around the 200 block of K Street. Underlying the violence was appellants' organized and massive business of selling drugs. Some appellants also were convicted for numerous attempted murders. All appellants were convicted for a racketeering conspiracy. Appellant William Sweeney was incarcerated when some of these purchases took place. Crucial to the government's case was testimony from former associates of appellants and nearby residents testimony that was undoubtedly difficult to obtain given evidence. That some of the appellants have a history of murdering or attempting to murder potential witnesses against them. Not every detail is known about appellants' lengthy pattern of lawlessness that preceded their indictment in 1998. Our summary is by no means 5 exhaustive of all facts underlying that activity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032989P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael appeals his conviction on numerous grounds: (1) the district court should not have admitted his state court testimony at trial. (5) the evidence was insufficient to convict him. I. Facts The following facts are based on the record evidence. With disputed questions of fact deemed to have been resolved by the jury in a manner that supports its verdict. Anne was interviewed by investigating police officers. Anne was the couple's maid of honor. The couple was particularly concerned that Jamie would be sentenced to a lengthy prison term if convicted. As she was then on probation for another offense. Michael and Jamie were charged with robbery. Anne's body was found near a rural farmhouse outside of Moorhead. She had been shot in the head and her throat was cut. Eight days after Anne was reported missing. Michael entered a plea of guilty to the staged robbery and was sentenced to sixty days' confinement. Jamie was found guilty by a jury. 2 On September 7. Over a year after Anne's body was found. Michael's parents told the police that they had received a telephone call from Michael who claimed to have read the details of Anne's murder in one of Jamie's diaries.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110215.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
KAHN CLERK Petitioner Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Leslie English by the Georgia state courts in 1987. We conclude that Crawford is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence. Facts Eddie Albert Crawford was convicted for the murder of his 29 month old niece. The defendant was married to. The defendant was intoxicated and. During this time the victim was in the care of Mrs. He stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/985342.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Only one of those two exhausted claims is befor e us now.1 In the one claim that we consider. Buhl ar gues that he was denied his constitutional right to conduct his own defense during his criminal trial in state court. W e hold that the trial court's rejection of Buhl's clear and unequivocal assertion of his right to proceed pr o se was improper. We will vacate the district court's ruling and remand for further procedures consistent with this opinion. Buhl's terrorized victim was only able to 1. Buhl is currently an inmate at the U.S. Serving a separate sentence of life imprisonment that is unrelated to. The instant appeal only relates to the aggregate sentence of life imprisonment plus 30 years incarceration that was imposed by the State of New Jersey. 2 escape when Pennsylvania police stopped her car to investigate its temporary license plate. She was then able to run to the patrol car and tell the officers that she had been kidnaped. He was captured appr oximately one month later. He was successfully prosecuted in federal court as well as the state courts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the various state and federal crimes he had committed in each jurisdiction during his rampage.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0193p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sowell's counsel was confident that one of the three judges on the panel would refuse to recommend death. Sowell's direct and collateral appeals through the Ohio courts were unsuccessful. Finding that Sowell's jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent. That his counsel was ineffective. We reverse the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus to Sowell because he has not demonstrated that his jury waiver was not knowing and intelligent or that his counsel was ineffective. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As the facts that underlie Sowell's death penalty are not in controversy. [Sowell] was the resident manager of the building and became acquainted with Graham. [Sowell] was a guest in Graham's apartment. Also present were Donna Edwards (Edwards). There was conflicting testimony concerning the events that transpired thereafter. It is not disputed that [Sowell] eventually lost consciousness. Billups was in the company of Edwards and the trio passed in the doorway of a store but did not acknowledge one another.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR>
We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/299AC29E1912EEF588256DE20082F25B/$file/0117332.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that the rule is unconstitutional and that the District Court erred in concluding that Gallo had received sufficient notice of the applicability of the amendment to him and that the Ninth Circuit should exercise its supervisory power to direct the District Court to apply Rule 1.5(a) prospectively. BACKGROUND Gallo was admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/961613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of murder in Missouri and sentenced to death. Kelvin Malone was convicted of the 1981 murder of William Parr. He was waiting in the cab line at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in St. Parr was first in line. The bank was less than three blocks from the bus terminal. Such deliveries were top priority. Parr had been shot and was lying face down with blood coming from his nose and right ear. He was taken to Christian Northeast Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. There was evidence that Kelvin Malone had arrived in St. Bego did not see who was there. The men drove off instead and were apprehended after a high speed chase. Three bullets test fired from one of these guns were later compared to a .25 caliber slug taken from Parr's brain. Louis police were inconclusive. Louis and which were found in the car at his arrest. Malone had been convicted and sentenced to death in California for two murders that took place in that state just a few days after Parr was killed in Missouri.3 Counsel was appointed in the Parr case on November 28.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/99-13479.OPN.html">PUTMAN V. HEAD (10/9/2001, NO. 99-13479)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. ISSUES FOR REVIEW</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/96-2599.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGISTER (7/29/1999, NO. 96-2599)<BR></A><BR>
We have examined the record and found those challenges to be without merit. Charles Register and Jubal Register both were arrested. The government brought to the court's attention a possible conflict of interest: Charles Register's attorney previously had represented several potential witnesses and currently was representing Jubal Register on matters related to the charges in the indictment. It alleged that one manner in which the enterprise operated was that unnamed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1764p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we are faced with the onerous task of determining whether the district court. The district court is required to dismiss a federal habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The result here is dictated by Rose v. We will remand this case to the district court with an order to dismiss the petition without prejudice so that the petitioner can first present her unexhausted claims to the appropriate Pennsylvania state court. Show was brutally murdered. Were subsequently charged with criminal homicide for the murder of Show.2 Buck was convicted of second degree murder by a jury of her peers. That Lambertfiled a motion to dismiss this appeal on the basis that since the district court found she was actually innocent of first degree murder. We will deny this motion. We are plainly authorized to review the final order of the district court in a habeas case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court at a bench trial. Lambert was six months pregnant with Yunkin's child. 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/005237.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All three were convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. One of which is a question of first impression for this Court whether and under what circumstances the trial court must give a jury instruction on venue. Factual Background In the following recitation of the facts on which Appellants' convictions were based. Del Rosario told Daluro that he was getting travel documents for a woman named
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4403.opa.html">WATTS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watts v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> A habeas petitioner contends that his due process rights were infringed when he was tried and convicted in state court for murder while incompetent to stand trial. Carl Eugene Watts was tried in Florida state court and convicted by a jury of second degree murder. Watts was asleep through much of the five day trial.<p> On the first day of trial. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D0D10C972DD6B7A88256EF300801E23/$file/0155246.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1.). Who was aware
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117176op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The five defendants were arrested. Were The defendants raised the following additional issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct regarding the testimony of a government witness and during closing argument. Guerrero were also charged with conspiring to deliver to Cuba
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87B2B1B7765B6AA788256D510082634B/$file/0199005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alcala was sentenced to death following his conviction for first degree murder. He is currently in prison. Challenging the district court's conclusions that (1) Alcala's constitutional rights were not violated when the state trial court admitted Crappa's prior testimony. (5) these failures to investigate were not constitutional deficiencies that could be included in the cumulative error analysis. Alcala was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. It is this trial that is at issue before us. He again was sentenced to death. They were at Huntington Beach at approximately 2:00 or 3:00 that afternoon when a man asked if he could take their pictures for a school contest. She testified that he was wearing a striped. That it was a long sleeved shirt. After Alcala was arrested. He testified that he was certain that the man had been wearing a blue Hawaiian shirt and had the impression that the man had on cut off shorts and sandals. Testified at trial that they were at Huntington Beach the day before Samsoe's disappearance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1721p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. **A non final draft of the Opinion in this matter was issued September 23. The correct final draft is filed herein. This is an appeal by plaintiffs Linda S. We reject plaintiffs' contention that their proffered evidence of retaliatory animus was sufficiently
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1459p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. 1983 was Alice Campos' eighteenth birthday. Campos then heard what she thought was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0315p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hicks was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of aggravated murder. He was sentenced to death. Who was Ghitana's mother and his mother in law. He knew that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Vinick appeals the district court's determination that he personally is liable for withholding taxes that Jefferson Bronze. Previously this court vacated a determination that Vinick was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E2C5308C349848038825713F000874AA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Williams was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to an aggravated term of fourteen years for the burglary conviction. 3402 WILLIAMS v. Was shot and killed on March 12. A white male who had been seen wandering around the neighborhood just before the shooting knocked on the Bunchek's door and asked Sylvia Bunchek whether her next door neighbors were home. Bunchek told him that they were not. Wood and the Tautkuses provided the police with a description from which a composite sketch was prepared. This sketch was televised and published in local newspapers on March 13. It was seen by one of Williams's roommates. Williams rented a house that was about three minutes from the Tuatkus home with Walsh.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/019000p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pennsylvania inmate Daniel Jacobs was sentenced to death for murdering his girlfriend Tammy Mock and to life in prison for murdering their baby Holly Jacobs. We will reverse the District Court's denial of habeas corpus relief on Jacobs' claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the guilt phase by failing to adequately investigate. We will affirm the District Court's denial of habeas corpus relief on each of Jacobs' remaining claims. Davis that Jacobs was subject to the death penalty. Jacobs was tried before a jury in the York County Court of Common Pleas for the first degree murders of Tammy and Holly. That he was incapable of forming a specific intent to kill her given his mental state at the time of the killing. Jacobs was sentenced to death for murdering Tammy and to life in prison for murdering Holly. He would have discovered the following facts. Jacobs' mother Delois drank heavily while she was pregnant with Jacobs. After Delois left Jacobs' father when Jacobs was very young. She was involved in relationships with several men who drank heavily and abused her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0039p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richey was arrested. Because constitutional errors have undermined our confidence in the reliability of Richey's conviction and sentence. Who was elsewhere at the time. Was alone in the apartment. He was interviewed by the police chief. Richey was arrested for arson and gave a tape recorded interview to the police. Who were joined by Cryer and a prosecutor. Although acknowledging that he was intoxicated and therefore did not remember much of what happened early in the day on June 30. Because gasoline and paint thinner were stored in an unlocked greenhouse across the street from the apartment building. The owner of the greenhouse was unable to determine whether any gasoline or paint thinner was missing. He eventually withdrew his insanity plea and was adjudged competent to stand trial. The heart of the indictment against Richey was the charge of aggravated felony murder. An aggravated felony murderer must have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that Hill has not shown that the delay prejudiced the penalty phase of his trial first because the mitigation theory that the psychologist did present (that Hill was suffering from cocaine psychosis at the time of the murder) did not differ in material ways from the one that would have been presented with more preparation and. Because nine psychological and background assessments of Hill had already been undertaken by the time the mitigation psychologist had been hired and all of them were submitted to the jury during the sentencing hearing. Who was partially paralyzed from a stroke. Leaving Jones waiting in the car after telling her that he was stopping off to get some money from his mother although he later testified that he returned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-15721.man.html">GRAYSON V. THOMPSON (7/16/2001, NO. 00-15721)<BR></A><BR>
Darrell Grayson was convicted of the capital murder of an elderly widow and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court of Shelby County. Annie Laura Orr was an eighty six (86) year old widow who lived alone in her house in Montevallo. They were armed with a .38 Caliber handgun. Orr was elderly. Orr's bedroom where she was apparently sleeping. Darrell Grayson then placed a pillowcase over her head and wrapped two relatively long lengths of masking tape very tightly around her head so that when they were finished he[r] head then appeared to be that of a mummy. Orr's murder and was familiar generally with the Grayson family. Officers knew that Kennedy and Grayson were friends and had been seen together the previous night. Officers were aware that Grayson had worked for Mrs. Orr previously and that he was familiar with her residence. Grayson's Confessions</EM></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032282p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the habeas petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. Lambert is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. Lambert was released into the custody of her attorneys on April 16. Her freedom was short lived. Where a PCRA Court (again Judge Stengel) held a six week hearing and determined in a comprehensive opinion that relief under the PCRA was not warranted. Judge Dalzell held that the state courts' findings were null and void because they lacked jurisdiction to hear Lambert's PCRA petition. The case was assigned to Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That the PCRA Court's findings were not null and void and were entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C425EBCCACE9AA2A88256B530000089D/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. 1531 Because of publicity. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig. The three men were standing over a barrel in which some of Thorpe's belongings were being burned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-7096.htm">99-7096 -- BATTENFIELD V. GIBSON -- 01/03/2001<BR></A><BR>
They declined because it was cold. There is also evidence that at this approximate time. Stopping once on the way for another ten to fifteen minutes. <p> There is conflicting evidence concerning what transpired when the occupants of the car returned. None of the men were in sight when they first returned to the truck. Cantrell was not in sight. <p> On the way back to Muskogee. The car broke down on the way back to Muskogee and a highway patrol officer helped Battenfield jump start the car. <p> Cantrell's body was found the next day at Wahoo Bay. The injury would likely have rendered Cantrell unconscious. The autopsy results also indicated Cantrell suffered various post mortem abrasions (perhaps from being dragged along the ground from one area to another). <p> The highway patrol officer who helped Battenfield jump start the car testified that Battenfield was wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was again observed wearing Cantrell's coat. Battenfield was arrested for the murder of Cantrell on April 24. Hairs from Cantrell's head were found on Battenfield's jeans and stocking cap (both of which Battenfield was wearing on the night of the murder). <p> Battenfield's jury trial began on February 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion filed 12/2/99 is vacated Filed: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98 7002 (CA 97 232 5 H) January 4. Line 3 of second indented quotation the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/325A563427ADD31788256B6800042005/$file/9999009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Delete from close of the opinion. Who is on death row in California for the murder of Kevin Thorpe in 1981. Because we find that Silva's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present potentially compelling mitigating evidence to the jury. Were college students returning from winter break when they passed through Madeline on their way to Oregon. Thorpe was then chained to a tree while Craig was taken inside a cabin and repeatedly sexually assaulted. Which were each buried in shallow graves. Craig was shot twice and killed by the side of a road. Murder charges against Thomas were dropped. He was eventually sentenced to eleven years and four months imprisonment for participating in the kidnaping. He was convicted of murdering both Thorpe and Craig and sentenced to life without parole. He was resentenced to life imprisonment. Silva's trial was held in San Bernardino County in January 1982. That Thorpe was murdered while Thomas was having consensual sex with Craig.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0145p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the performance of Ege's state trial counsel was unconstitutionally deficient and caused her actual prejudice. Argues additionally that Ege's habeas petition is time barred under the one year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. I This is a troubling case. The crime is horrific. The initial investigation was deficient. Defendant was not charged until nine years after the murder. There are others who are logical suspects. No physical evidence links defendant to the crime except testimony that a mark on the victim's cheek is a bite mark that is highly consistent with defendant's dentition. Such was the description of Carol Ege's case by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Whose child Thompson allegedly was carrying. There was no sign of forced entry at Thompson's home. The back door was found unlocked. Thompson was last seen alive on the evening of February 21. The investigation was reopened as a result of persons coming forward with evidence allegedly incriminating Ege. Evidence that had been collected at the murder scene in February 1984 was submitted to the Michigan state crime lab for the first time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-10215-p.opn.html">CRAWFORD V. HEAD (11/12/2002, NO. 01-10215-)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Turrentine was convicted in the Oklahoma courts on four counts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to death. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He is currently an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary under the custody of Warden Mike Mullin. Background The facts as found by the state court are. The facts of this case are both sad and horrific. Richardson was having an affair with two other men. Knew of these affairs because she was apparently a friend and confidant of Ms. Stevenson were cheating him out of money. Told her that he was at Ms. Richardson's house and that things were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pazden was convicted in state court on a 119 count indictment involving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C8E2AFA2EDD6DBA788257153007E7DCA/$file/0199015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED by deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it with the following sentence:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/049005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sr. was found guilty by a Bucks County. He was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife. Subsequent to the District Court's granting the writ our decision in Banks was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Beard v. We hold that the defense was properly raised for the first time in the brief on appeal. Thus it is not waived. Because the District Court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's 2004 Beard decision when it granted the writ on the basis of Mills. We will not reverse. We will vacate the order granting the writ. The matter will be remanded. The District Court's determination that the guilt phase issues do not warrant habeas relief will be affirmed. Albrecht was arrested in January 1980 after the arson investigation was completed. The Commonwealth sought to prove that the fire was arson. That Albrecht was having an extramarital affair. Some of the abuse testimony was dramatic. She was kicked in the legs and she had bruises on her calf and he had banged her head against the refrigerator.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D38C1EE1C92A9DF88256B57007FDF49/$file/9799017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pizzuto was sentenced to death. Because Pizzuto filed his habeas petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was enacted. Regardless of when the petition was filed. Pizzuto needs a certificate of appealability (COA) rather than a certificate of probable cause (CPC) for this court to have jurisdiction. As Pizzuto could not have known that a COA rather than a CPC was required. Berta Herndon and her adult nephew Delbert Herndon were robbed and murdered and their property was stolen while they were camping in the Ruby Meadows area. The victims' hands were bound behind their backs with shoelaces and heavy wire. Berta's and Delbert's jeans were pulled below their knees. Were camping together that day in a cabin in the Ruby Meadows area. While they were at the pond. He picked up a .22 caliber rifle and said he was going
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/99-13479.OPN.html">PUTMAN V. HEAD (10/9/2001, NO. 99-13479)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant William Howard Putman was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to death for each count on September 17. ISSUES FOR REVIEW</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D78AE3B98DC6984C88256EB4005B38F8/$file/9930135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Procedural History The underlying facts of this case are set forth in our previous decision. Claiming that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either the conspiracy or possession count. Appellant's lawyers have referred to appellant alternately as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6146EB287D3927188256E2800820C29/$file/0199007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2003 is amended as follows: The language beginning with the last paragraph on page 808. Is replaced with the following (with footnotes renumbered in the remainder of the opinion): Recognizing that Gray's behavior might be labeled a tactical decision. Was both completely uninformed and so unreasonable as to be constitutionally deficient. Counsel may also choose not to pursue a particular investigation if such a choice is reasonable. Gray was faced with a client who had freely confessed extensive involvement with two homicides prior to Gray's involvement in the case. Gray's decision not to investigate that crime was objectively reasonable.1 Beardslee insists that the strategic choice to offer complete cooperation was so misguided that it cannot be constitutionally permissible. The judge hearing the motion to substitute counsel said he would have adopted the same strategy. Although in hindsight some other strategy may have been preferable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was allowed without a recorded colloquy between Henderson and the judge regarding the dangers of self representation. Henderson was not represented by counsel at a subsequent pretrial hearing where he unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession. He was represented by counsel at his trial. We must first decide whether his habeas 2 petition was time barred under provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6013.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marty Sirmons is substituted for Mike Mullin as Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. <hr> Jimmy Dale Bland. Bland was convicted of one count of first degree malice aforethought murder. Defended on the ground that the killing was neither malice aforethought murder nor felony murder. Rains was romantically involved with Mr. Bland testified that the two men were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0227.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Lester's body was discovered on October 12. Where her body was found. Lester's clothing was in disarray. A bottle of wine was found on the floor at the foot of the bed. Reid was acquainted with Lester and had received an automobile ride to her 1 Reid named Page True. Reid was observed walking from the direction of Lester's house. The blood on Reid's clothing was later determined to be consistent with Lester's DNA. Reid's fingerprints were found in blood on the telephone in Lester's bedroom. His saliva was found on a cigarette butt left in the room. His handwriting was found on pieces of paper in the house. Who claimed to have no memory of Lester's murder. 37 (1970) (holding that a defendant may plead guilty
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1515.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were found guilty of both offenses. Robert Verbickas was found guilty of the substantive deprivation charge. We have consolidated all five cases for disposition on appeal. Eight Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0227A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Lester's body was discovered on October 12. Where her body was found. TRUE 3 was in disarray. A bottle of wine was found on the floor at the foot of the bed. Reid was acquainted with Lester and had received an automobile ride to her house in the mid morning of the day of the murder. Reid was observed walking from the direction of Lester's house. The blood on Reid's clothing was later determined to be consistent with Lester's DNA. Reid's fingerprints were found in blood on the telephone in Lester's bedroom. His saliva was found on a cigarette butt left in the room. His handwriting was found on pieces of paper in the house. Who claimed to have no memory of Lester's murder. 37 (1970) (holding that a defendant may plead guilty
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD9AB845CCE45835882572C6007CB58A/$file/0550768.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. The following sentence at 478 F.3d 1033 is deleted: To prove previous deportation the third element and the only one in dispute at Castillo Basa's UNITED STATES v. [(2)] a warrant of deportation was issued and [(3)] executed by the removal of the defendant from the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFB00295C1BA4BE588256C960001A700/$file/0130057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND TSI is an Alaska corporation that performs asbestosremediation services. The mill had closed in 1993 and was scheduled for demolition. The powerhouse was a large structure. The powerhouse was in a state of disrepair. There were holes of all sizes in the walls and ceiling. TSI's primary contractual responsibility was to remove asbestos insulation on the pipes. The project was stopped. One of the EPA's concerns was that TSI was washing wastewater. Sent a letter to the EPA explaining how TSI was complying with regulatory requirements. The letter stated that it was submitted for settlement purposes. Enclosed with the letter was a statement. Asserting that TSI was not washing wastewater into the powerhouse drains. 6 UNITED STATES v. Before the powerhouse was demolished. The EPA contacted Wade and asked him to take another look at one of the pipes in the powerhouse from which TSI was to have removed asbestos. Stemming from allegations that Rushing solicited employees to sign the false statement that TSI was not washing wastewater into Silver Bay.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have an appeal by an employer from an adverse verdict in favor of an employee (here independent contractor) on his claim of unlawful termination in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Our task is to review the law applied by the District Court on a plenary basis and ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. 2 I. Gregg Sylvester was the Secretary of DHSS from October. Was an independent contractor at the DPC from July 1. These were introduced into evidence at trial as Plaintiff's Exhibits PX 1 through 5. We summarize them below but because they are central to the issues before us they are included verbatim in the Appendix to this opinion. The memorandum charges that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2057.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellee. Contending that (1) various evidentiary rulings affected the verdict and (2) the jury instructions were incomplete and misleading. Was beset by operational problems that were undermining sales in the Boston area. Kelley was promoted to Regional Field Services Manager (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-7155a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213654.opn2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Anton Pusztai and Anita Yates (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Gerald Barkell was convicted by a jury in Wyoming state court on two counts of third degree sexual assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253. Barkell's claim that his attorney was ineffective in preparing for trial. (3) the state court has not ruled on whether he would be entitled to relief if he were able to prove his allegations. Barkell was charged with sexual assault after his 10 year old stepdaughter. Was appointed to represent him. Barkell was sentenced to consecutive terms of five to seven years' imprisonment on each count. Stating that the Wyoming Supreme Court's adjudication of his claims was neither contrary to. A federal court will grant habeas relief only when the applicant establishes that the state court decision was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0320p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His petition was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Petitioner's case was transferred to Judge Haynes. The court found that the claims of insufficiency of the evidence and improper voir dire were not supported by evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the state court's findings of fact.1 As to the Brady claim. B. FACTS The following facts were found by the state appellate court on direct review: The victims. Were street people who camped under the bridges along the Cumberland River. Defendant was shirtless. Was a billfold similar to that carried by truck drivers. The gun was either a .32 or .38 caliber revolver. The leash was a choker chain with a leather belt. When the man got to within twenty feet he spoke identifying himself as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0941p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
West's action is based on his claims of a racially hostile work environment at PECO. West contends that all of this evidence was admissible under the theory that the violations were continuing. The statutory limitations period is not. We find that the district court here was overly restrictive in its determinations of admissibility and that the challenged evidentiary exclusions were erroneous in that they deprived West of the opportunity to present his full case to the jury. We will. PECO asserted that this evidence was time barred by the limitations period established in Title VII. Maintained that the alleged hostile work environment was a continuing violation. Then you'd have to show as to something prior to that time. That the same actor was involved. So if there was a different actor. The relevant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-6435.htm">97-6435 -- BRYSON V. WARD -- 08/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
Fourteenth Amendments when it determined he was competent to stand trial. BACKGROUND <p> Bryson first met his co defendant Marilyn Plantz in late 1987 or early 1988 when he was sixteen and she was in her late twenties and married. McKimble was a teenager. McKimble knew that Bryson and Plantz were romantically involved. Plantz was abusive and that she wanted to kill him to obtain life insurance proceeds. Third suggestion was that Bryson and McKimble push Mr. None of these schemes was carried out. <p> On August 17. One of Marilyn Plantz's schemes was carried further but ultimately failed. They were unable to carry out the plan because Mr. Farris was arrested for unrelated reasons. <p> On August 25. McKimble were together. Plantz was beaten so badly. Plantz was insured for approximately $299. Plantz was alive. McKimble said that he had expected to be paid for the murder. <p> Bryson was interviewed by police detectives two times after the murder. PROCEDURAL HISTORY <p> Bryson was found guilty of first degree murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also hold that the defendants have established that the district court plainly erred when sentencing these defendants. Which we have consolidated for disposition. Kendall Lipscomb was a correctional officer who only had <hr> approximately six months of experience at the time of the incident. Duran was ordered to leave the dining hall. Where they were joined by Lieutenants Fuller and Serrata. The camera either malfunctioned during the incident or was never turned on. So there is no tape of the event. Convinced that he was about to be beaten. Said that he would not allow his other hand <hr> to be cuffed until the video camera was turned on. Duran was lying on the ground face first with both hands behind his back. Who were standing on opposite sides of Mr. The defendants' version of the story is considerably different. Officers Fuller and Butler were on either side of Mr. Duran continued to defy the officers' orders when the dogs were brought out. Duran was. Fighting with the officers to an extent that use of force on the part of the officers was reasonable and necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215674.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I was wrestling trying to get free. I was mad but he thought it was all a big joke.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI0MzJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2432_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because (1) he is actually innocent of the offense for which he was convicted. (3) he was incapable of filing his state post conviction motion pro se because the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated did not contain New York State case law. (2) Doe did not exercise reasonable diligence during the period that he seeks to have tolled for attorney incompetence. (3) Doe is not entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of the purported inadequacies of the library of the federal prison in which he was incarcerated because he has not established that the library lacked materials adequate to prepare his state post conviction motion. We requested supplemental briefing on whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982861P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dooley is also the president. One of which is called Oak Manor. Williams that one or more apartments were available. All three applicants were later denied an opportunity to rent an apartment at Oak Manor. Both Batts and Poole are black. Williams is white. She is the mother of a biracial child. Williams were seeking to a white man. Ragan also informed HUD that Big D refused to rent to Williams because she is the mother of a biracial child and her ex husband is black. 2 After investigating Ragan's and Williams' complaints. HUD found that appellants' acts of impermissible discrimination were not limited to Batts. The district court should have given a mixed motive instruction. The punitive damage award is excessive in relation to the compensatory damage award. The action is barred by the statute of limitations. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and we will not reverse a jury's determinations unless we find
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1096.htm">96-1096 -- GOODWIN V. M.C.I. COMMUNICATIONS CORP. -- 02/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
Was employed by MCI from 1990 to 1994. Goodwin was promoted to the position of supervisor. MCI was transferring its Client Services Group operation to Colorado Springs. Goodwin was offered a transfer to Colorado Springs. Goodwin was terminated. Goodwin was informed he was being discharged because he had engaged in conduct that was unethical and nonconducive to the work environment by dating a temporary employee. Alleging that MCI's termination of his employment was racially motivated. MCI responded that Goodwin was terminated for legitimate. As was employed by MCI with respect to nonminority employees who committed similar infractions. Was the primary decision maker in the decision to terminate Goodwin and that Weiland bore racial animus toward African Americans. The trial court found that this racial animus was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Karen Long testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023727p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main issue presented in these appeals is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Because we conclude that the District Court's referral was an improper delegation of its traditional adjudicatory function. Factual Background and Procedural History This is the second time this CERCLA contribution action has been before us. The chief tasks on remand were to determine which of Beazer's response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1065.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelakos LLP</U> were on brief for plaintiff.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1625.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Will & Emery. On the brief were Douglas A. Of counsel on the brief were Don O. The jury's verdict that Ericsson's infringement was willful. Both of these types of products are accused of infringing the '338 patent in the present case. This patent concerns the way wireless signals are processed. The symbols are transmitted by means of electromagnetic waves. This effect is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F17DCBBD20709FA882571A2004B932A/$file/0299004.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. I. Factual Background The facts of the murder of Denise Williams have been recounted in numerous prior decisions in state and federal courts. 1 and are recited only briefly here. Hoffman was employed by Richard Holmes. Holmes was arrested for distributing controlled substances. After Holmes was released on bail. ARAVE 7337 and told Williams that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The public policy claim was sent to the jury. Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he was an at will employee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary Kusens was employed by Defendant Pascal Company. When his position was eliminated. Plaintiff was 54 years old. His base salary increased and his commissions were determined as a fixed percentage of nationwide Pascal sales. Two of the people responsible for the elimination of Plaintiff's position were Defendant Benjamin Paschall. Pascal's Vice President of Sales and Marketing who was also Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff was the oldest of the four Regional Sales Managers at Pascal. Who was terminated the same day as Plaintiff. Was the second oldest. The youngest two Sales Managers were retained. Plaintiff filed suit contending that he was fired because of his age and not because of Pascal's financial strategy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/963231P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tucker was indicted in a twenty one count indictment. Tucker was indicted on the conspiracy charge and ten substantive counts based on individual transactions. The district court dismissed Counts 8 11.1 The remainder of the case was submitted to the jury. Tucker contends the convictions should be reversed because after trial it was discovered that a juror was married to a former state prisoner to whom Tucker. Tucker further objected to the empaneling of a juror who gave answers to a written jury questionnaire that were inconsistent with a defendant's right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence. Tucker contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of mail fraud and conspiracy. Hale was a municipal judge in Little Rock. All were active in state politics in one capacity or another and all had multifarious business interests. Hale told McDougal that the lending limit was $150. The lending limit was a function of the amount of capital Hale had available to invest in Capital Management Services.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This criminal prosecution pertains to one of six defendants who were tried on charges of conspiracy to conduct and participate in a Detroit based racketeer influenced and corrupt organization.1 Appellant Jack W. Tocco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR>
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3662.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On appeal we must determine whether compensatory and punitive damages are available as a remedy for a retaliation claim against an employer under the ADA. Although Moser was impressed by the performance of Kramer's team during early 1999. Moser was critical of Kramer's job performance. This was the first notice that BOA had of Kramer's disease. Moser informed Kramer that her employment with BOA was terminated. Trial on Kramer's remaining claim was scheduled for May 13. BOA asserted that compensa 4 No. 02 3662 tory and punitive damages are not recoverable on a claim of retaliation under the ADA. Because Kramer was not entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the ADA. The court found that compensatory and punitive damages were not available as a remedy and that Kramer was not. Kramer argues that the district court erred in ruling that the she was not entitled to seek compensatory and punitive damages for a claim of retaliation under the ADA. Because she was entitled to seek compensatory and punitive damages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12E2F4A4711E48068825728E005C3D35/$file/0550768.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government was unable to convict Castillo Basa the first time it tried him. In large part because its counsel failed to locate and present a crucial tape recording that was within its possession. CASTILLO BASA 2095 at the second trial would be the same as it was at the first: was Castillo Basa afforded a deportation hearing at which he was present? The government has already had its chance to prove that Castillo Basa had a deportation hearing and that his testimony to the contrary was false. The outcome in this case follows directly from basic principles of collateral estoppel that are inherent in the Double Jeopardy Clause. The only issue in dispute during Castillo Basa's trial for illegal reentry was whether he had been brought before an immigration judge and afforded a deportation hearing prior to his deportation. The jury necessarily decided that Castillo Basa's testimony on the critical question of the deportation hearing was not false. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars the government from trying a second time to attempt to show that CastilloBasa was afforded the hearing in question and that his testimony to the contrary was untruthful. 2096 UNITED STATES v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="662"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR>
Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was
</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//aug2000/99-12360.man.html">MUNOZ V. OCEANSIDE RESORTS (8/25/2000, NO. 99-12360)<BR></A><BR>
We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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=91-1896.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 30. Is amended as follows: On page 44. Lines 14 16: replace the sentence
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5007.html">AIR LAND FORWARDERS, INC. V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 98-5007)<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Stanley I. With him on the brief were <u>David M. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p> The appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-7054a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Along with related deposition testimony had limited probative value that was significantly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and the potential to confuse the jury. Henderson's Surgery Sharon Boone Henderson weighed 367 pounds by the time she was 34 years old. A small
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-8087.htm">97-8087 -- MONCRIEF V. WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CO. -- 04/20/1999<BR></A><BR>
</strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</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//aug95/88-3945.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. Jr. is a Florida prison inmate. Florida.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1275p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the second time that this habeas corpus proceeding has been before us. We will reverse. I. William Weatherwax was indicted for the shooting death of St. Only one of those arguments is relevant to this appeal. Weatherwax alleged that during his trial a juror was observed with a newspaper containing an article about the trial. Reasoning that the newspaper article was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-3105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Roscoe C. This case presents similar facts and is therefore governed by our decision in Hall. This was error. Such circumstances exist only when the cause of the failure to meet the deadline was
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1285.html">SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., ET AL. V. APOTEX CORP., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Hugh L. Nelson</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Apotex s prod
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-6108.htm">03-6108 -- SALLAHDIN V. MULLIN -- 08/24/2004<BR></A><BR>
1291 and reverse. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The relevant underlying facts of Sallahdin's crime and state court proceedings were set forth in <u>Sallahdin v. James Principe and Bradley Grooms were stocking shelves at the 7 Eleven convenience store where they worked [in Lawton. Sallahdin was behind the counter and gave her a cup of ice. Sallahdin was taken into custody at his wife's home in Akron. Which is punishable by death in Oklahoma. We found
</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=01-2693EB.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on supplemental brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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//july95/93-2523.man.html">MEDINA V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Medina v. A Florida inmate who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Medina contends that his conviction and/or sentence were invalid on thirteen constitutional grounds. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Medina came to the United States from Cuba in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift when he was nineteen years old. He was released from a Cuban mental hospital immediately before leaving Cuba. Medina lived in the Orlando area and was befriended by Dorothy James. Medina moved to Tampa.<p> James was found dead in her Orlando home on April 4. Medina was found asleep in James' automobile at a rest stop on I 10 near Lake City and was arrested for theft of the automobile. Medina was arrested and indicted for the murder of James.<p> Medina requested psychiatric evaluation and was examined by two psychiatrists. Was held the day before trial. The court found that Medina was competent to stand trial.<p> Medina was tried before a jury March 15 18.
</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/aug95/88-3945.man.html">MILLS V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mills v. Jr. is a Florida prison inmate. Florida.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/954017.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 9 the reference to § 106 is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1985.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rachel Brill with whom Jose Fernando Irizarry was on brief for appellant Diaz Perez. Were on brief for appellee. D az P rez argues that she is entitled to a new trial because the government violated Fed. De la Cruz Paulino argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Chita told the agents that the Puerto Rican contact was known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-3070a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Kenneth L. I West was a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from New Jersey to North Carolina on February 2. West was seated in the last row of the bus. Detective James McNamara who was wearing street clothes and did not display a weapon approached West. West opened it and began moving items around so that the detective could see what was inside. That his consent was voluntary. That evidence regarding the gun was therefore admissible at trial. The lawyers were given a list of the occupations that potential jurors had reported on their juror questionnaires. The court instructed the panel members to raise their hands if the answer was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1733p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <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/july95/93-2523.man.html">MEDINA V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Medina v. A Florida inmate who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Medina contends that his conviction and/or sentence were invalid on thirteen constitutional grounds. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Medina came to the United States from Cuba in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift when he was nineteen years old. He was released from a Cuban mental hospital immediately before leaving Cuba. Medina lived in the Orlando area and was befriended by Dorothy James. Medina moved to Tampa.<p> James was found dead in her Orlando home on April 4. Medina was found asleep in James' automobile at a rest stop on I 10 near Lake City and was arrested for theft of the automobile. Medina was arrested and indicted for the murder of James.<p> Medina requested psychiatric evaluation and was examined by two psychiatrists. Was held the day before trial. The court found that Medina was competent to stand trial.<p> Medina was tried before a jury March 15 18.
</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/aug2000/99-12360.man.html">MUNOZ V. OCEANSIDE RESORTS (8/25/2000, NO. 99-12360)<BR></A><BR>
We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1112.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Christopher Landau. Of counsel on the brief was Sarah Sklover. Of counsel was John C. With him on the brief was William G.Todd. With him on the brief were Frank E. (Sandel) cross appeal the district court's final decision that other remaining claims were not barred by public uses or premature sales activity. This type of accident is called a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct15/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/95-2026.html">UNITED STATES V. PLATERO<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. I A There was evidence presented by the government showing the following: After work on September 1. Laughlin was driving. Francis testified that she was reclined in her seat.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-1492.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Terry Young were collectively convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox and Young were also convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Mohammad Mansoori was convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving funds derived from criminal activity. 99 3623 was convicted of money laundering. Who were engaged in narcotics trafficking had organized a drug deal that. Was assigned to transfer the cocaine from White to another TVL member. Once Bronson was in possession of the cocaine. Mohammad Mansoori was not a member of TVL. Choice were all members of TVL. Was in charge of the drug sales. Mansoori made several large cash payments to contractors for a house he was having built in Highland Park. He used Young's money to make the purchase and understood that the house was actually Young's. An IRS agent testified that he did not think that Young could have purchased the property with his legitimate sources of income. The defendants were using to conduct their narcotics business.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8A8B41281E202D3B88256E1C00830BFB/$file/0215280.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Williams was charged in California state court with conspiracy to defraud. Williams' first trial ended when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Claiming the challenge was improperly race based under People v. He predicted that Alice Stowe would be a hostile witness since she originally had been charged in the conspiracy and was granted immunity so the prosecutor could compel her testimony. The prosecutor stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-4592.opn.html">CABBERIZA V. MOORE (7/11/2000, NO. 97-4592)<BR></A><BR>
Most felonies are tried before a six person jury. A person charged with the capital crime of first degree murder is entitled to a twelve person jury. Petitioner David Cabberiza (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8B53EDC826E8CC6A8825726800054A4B/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. It was not until the Petition for Rehearing that Jawara. First addressed whether the expert's reliance on the country report is testimonial under Crawford v. This is a significant question given the traditional reliance on State Department country reports in immigration proceedings. Because the comparative country conditions were not central to the charges here and the admission of this testimony was harmless. The same is true with respect to 808 UNITED STATES v. As I have stated. The evidence on the document fraud charge is comparatively weak. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE24B24353BD1131882571EA0055BE58/$file/0530266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We focus primarily on Jawara's claim of misjoinder and clarify the framework for assessing whether the joined offenses are of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: James Callahan was convicted and sentenced to death in Alabama state court for the intentional murder of Rebecca Suzanne Howell. Which was granted in part and denied in part. (3) his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. Callahan did not argue to this Court that his statements should not have been admitted because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of the right to counsel. There have been two trials. It is necessary for us to review the entire history of the case. At the club where he was performing with his band in Jacksonville. Was a student at Jacksonville State University. Howell was supposed to return to the club. Howell was found dead of asphyxiation in the Tallasseehatchee Creek in Calhoun County. Alabama her hands were taped together. Her belt was on upside down. She was not wearing pantyhose. Jimmy Dunagan was in his car outside of a washerteria six or seven blocks from the Norge Washerteria.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1532.html">MENTOR H/S INC V. MEDICAL DEVICE ALLIANCE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants<a name=QuickMark></a>.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct18/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Border Patrol Agent David Sipe was convicted after a jury trial of using excessive force and causing bodily injury in the arrest of Jose Guevara. Were patrolling the border between the United States and Mexico. Were also Two other BPAs. Both pairs of agents were alerted that a sensor alarm had been triggered in the area. A second sensor was triggered approximately twenty A group of twelve to fifteen aliens who were minutes later. 1 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 attempting to move through the area had triggered the sensors. of the aliens was Jose Guevara. One Because it was still dark. Fled to the arrizo an area of heavy reeds that were both dense and taller than the aliens and agents. What happened next is disputed. They testified that Guevara did not resist or yell out and Sanchez claimed that that his scalp was cut by one of the blows. he saw Guevara squatting alone and motionless just before Sipe struck Guevara at least twice with a flashlight and that Guevara was bleeding after the blows. Who was slightly farther away from Sanchez.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031325p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were convicted of improperly accepting payments from plumbers whose work they inspected in violation of the Hobbs Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/961086P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Exculpatory evidence was apparently withheld from Clemmons by the State prior to his In addition. Evidence that was important to the State's case came in by deposition. That both these claims were procedurally barred. The District Court and the Missouri Supreme Court have rendered careful and detailed opinions reciting the facts in this case. Clemmons was an inmate at the Missouri State Penitentiary. It was then that Steigerwald realized that a stabbing had occurred. Who was We will summarize them here only to the extent necessary for our Petitioner also argues that certain claims made in his habeas petition were admitted by the State when (according to him) it failed to deny them in a timely fashion. That his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to certain allegedly improper actions of the prosecutor. We have considered these arguments and reject them. Who was wearing a gray towel around his head. Who was Clemmons. By that time the sweatshirt had been turned inside out There was human blood on the gray part No knife was ever found.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murray with whom Lorusso & Loud was on brief for Aastar Mortgage Corp. P.C. was on brief for Star Financial Services. The court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0748p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there was insufficient evidence produced at trial that the United States mails were used to accomplish the alleged fraud. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and direct that a judgment of acquittal be entered. I. Hannigan was indicted on two counts of mail fraud. We will address only those facts and issues concerning Count One dealing with the sufficiency of evidence as to mailing. Hannigan was the manager of an auto body shop. Since Skowronski was the only witness who testified as to the mailing. We will describe her testimony in some detail. Then once they were run off of a printer. Skowronski testified to a different procedure: In order for a check to be picked up at our office . . . we would have to have our unit manager approve someone coming in to pick up the check for a check to be released to me. Would be signing the file or signing a piece of paper that was attached to the file. Then once that was done when you input the check on the computer. There was a little sign a little question that said.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-4592.opn.html">CABBERIZA V. MOORE (7/11/2000, NO. 97-4592)<BR></A><BR>
Most felonies are tried before a six person jury. A person charged with the capital crime of first degree murder is entitled to a twelve person jury. Petitioner David Cabberiza (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 11
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C16C62E52B94CC4C88256C210059984A/$file/9999030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Including whether the prosecution's failure to reveal evidence that could have been used to impeach a witness had a material effect on the jury's verdict. Who was staying with her. Was the only person in it. He was wearing a dark blue three piece suit and a light blue. Because Patel was occupied. Hayes and Patel were coming out of Patel's bathroom area. Was awakened by knocking at her door. There were wet spots on the suit coat. His hands were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1416.html">VIRGINIA V. MAC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/89-3213a.html">USA V. CARRAZANA RADAMEZ<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we disagree with the district court's conclusion that Poindexter was deprived of his right to counsel during the guilt phase. I. Background The facts of this case are excerpted from State v. Was serving a sentence in the workhouse (Community Correctional Institution) for felonious assault on his former girlfriend and the mother of his two children. Appellant confided in a fellow inmate that Abernathy was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR>
The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the state trial court refused to sever his case from his co defendant. Whose confession which also implicated Grossman was introduced at trial. I. Grossman was convicted of first degree murder by a state court jury in Pinellas County. While she was engaged in the lawful performance of her duties. Which was denied by the trial judge 1 in an order subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether Grossman received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his trial.2 The judge who resolved Grossman's post conviction claim for relief was the same judge who presided over the original trial. Are these. Grossman was living in nearby Pasco County and was on probation following a recent prison term. Florida wildlife officer Margaret (Peggy) Park was on patrol in the area and became suspicious when she saw Grossman and Taylor. Grossman pleaded with the officer not to arrest him because possessing a weapon and being outside of Pasco County would have violated the terms of his probation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013347.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-8062.html">SCHILLINGER V. HAWORTH<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were * Honorable Kathryn H. We agree that under the facts found by the Wyoming courts the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated. Steven Haworth was arrested after using his pocketknife against Rod Risk in an early morning brawl outside the Lazy 8 Bar. Haworth was charged with aggravated assault and battery and was incarcerated in a local county jail. Because Haworth was unable to make bail. Because Haworth was in custody. These pretrial preparatory sessions were held on the condition that a deputy sheriff would be present at all times.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8BAEE6CBE6848D988256CDE005EB54F/$file/0115841.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0306p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Luis Carlos Guerrero was convicted of nine charges of cocaine trafficking and sentenced to 175 years in prison. Claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney failed to communicate a plea offer to him. Was indicted in federal court on nine counts. Guerrero was represented by John O'Donnell. Guerrero was re tried in July of 1988.1 This time. This motion was based on the governm ent's stated intention to call a co defendant to testify about a m eeting with 1 The Honorable John D. While he was there. He was transferred to a prison in Miami. That it was his practice to communicate all plea offers to his clients. The only portion of Guerrero's ineffective assistance of counsel claim that the district court addressed was his claim that O'Donnell had failed to inform him of O'Donnell's own prior conviction for possession of cocaine. The court found that while O'Donnell's failure to disclose this conviction may have constituted deficient performance. Noting that this alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claim was based on a different ground for relief than that which had been previously considered on direct appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E5E0F7E45CF1FF788256CEE00810FCE/$file/0199007.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was acquainted with her friends and knew of their involvement with drugs. Beardslee claimed he was especially fearful of the violent Rutherford. Geddling was told she was being taken to a hospital. He later claimed he thought she was already dead and had merely pretended to shoot her in order to demonstrate his involvement and impress Rutherford. Where Benjamin was still being held. He later claimed he thought she was already dead when he cut her throat and was only acting out of fear of Rutherford. Geddling's body was discovered the next day. He was charged with both homicides on May 3. He had already told police he was on parole from a prior homicide in Missouri. He was also charged with the special circumstance of a previous murder conviction. He agreed to have Beardslee cooperate fully with the authorities against his co defendants in order to generate mitigation at the penalty phase of the trial. Beardslee's motion was denied. Beardslee's co defendants were tried first. Forrester was acquitted of the Geddling killing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 is an Alabama prisoner on death row due to his conviction for the 1988 fatal shooting of Leon Shaw in Birmingham. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the question of whether petitioner's trial counsel were constitutionally ineffective in failing to uncover and present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial. We subsequently amended the certificate to include the question of whether counsel were constitutionally ineffective in failing to develop and present evidence that the shooting was not the cause of Shaw's death. I. Petitioner was indicted for capital murder in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Who was indigent.2 At 1 For the remainder of this opinion. Wilkinson was formerly a District Attorney for Jefferson County and had handled several capital murder cases. Insisting that he was innocent on the theory that an unknown third party had shot the victim. Shaw was not supposed to be driving because Wilkinson. Among them were Sgt. Was the culprit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-6445.opa.html">MORRO V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morro v. The central issue in this appeal is whether the City of Birmingham's Police Chief is a final policymaker with respect to disciplinary suspension decisions at the City's police department. We would be inclined to hold that the Chief is not a final policymaker. Because his disciplinary suspension decisions are subject to meaningful administrative review by the Jefferson County Personnel Board. For that reason and because no issue that was preserved by the City warrants reversal of the judgment. We will not reverse the judgement imposing municipal liability in this case.<p> <b>I. Was patrolling the Kingston Housing Project with Morro. Was arrested on charges of inciting a riot. Arrington was arrested by Officer Jerry Bahakel. Arrington was tried in municipal court before Judge Carol Smitherman. The trial was widely attended by the press and interested citizens. Judge Smitherman found Arrington not guilty of all the charges against her.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)<BR></A><BR>
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996119.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 1 2: the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032103P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that Nooner's substantive claims were without merit. Although we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Nooner's motion to dismiss his petition was knowing and voluntary. Was washing clothes at a Little Rock laundromat at approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 16. An element of which was the use or threat of violence. That the murder was committed for pecuniary gain) and no mitigating circumstances. Nooner was sentenced to death by lethal injection. While the petition was pending. We directed the district court to reexamine its decision and determine whether Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition. The district court determined that Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition and granted his request. The district court also addressed the merits of Nooner's petition and concluded that his stated claims were without merit. (2) that Arkansas' victim impact statute is constitutionally infirm. We first examine the district court's factual finding that Nooner was competent to withdraw his habeas petition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/93-3407.man.html">JOHNSTON V. SINGLETARY (12/8/1998, NO. 93-3407)<BR></A><BR>
The police arrested Johnston for Hammond's murder after noticing that his clothes were blood stained. His face was scratched. His statements to the police were inconsistent. (b) a watch that Johnston wore shortly before the murder was found covered with blood in Hammond's home and a pin that Johnston wore on the morning of the murder was found entangled in Hammond's hair. That the murder was especially heinous. Cruel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1490.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Lisa Kobialka. With him on the brief were Paul F. Of counsel on the brief was Richard M. Of counsel was Evelyn H. With him on the brief was William F. Of counsel on the brief were Guillermo E. This patent infringement action was brought by appellant PharmaStem Therapeutics. PharmaStem sued six defendants (four of which are appellees before us in this appeal). The treatment is based on the discovery that blood from a newborn infant's umbilical cord is a rich source of a type of stem cells useful for rebuilding an individual's blood and immune system after that system has been compromised by disease or a medical treatment such as chemotherapy. Stem cells are fundamental (or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6445.opa.html">MORRO V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morro v. The central issue in this appeal is whether the City of Birmingham's Police Chief is a final policymaker with respect to disciplinary suspension decisions at the City's police department. We would be inclined to hold that the Chief is not a final policymaker. Because his disciplinary suspension decisions are subject to meaningful administrative review by the Jefferson County Personnel Board. For that reason and because no issue that was preserved by the City warrants reversal of the judgment. We will not reverse the judgement imposing municipal liability in this case.<p> <b>I. Was patrolling the Kingston Housing Project with Morro. Was arrested on charges of inciting a riot. Arrington was arrested by Officer Jerry Bahakel. Arrington was tried in municipal court before Judge Carol Smitherman. The trial was widely attended by the press and interested citizens. Judge Smitherman found Arrington not guilty of all the charges against her.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/02-3067a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief for appellants. With her on the brief was Robert A. Defendants Rafael Mejia and Homes Valencia Rios were convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine with the knowledge and intent that it would be unlawfully imported into the United States. Mejia was sentenced to 400 months in prison and Rios to 324 months. On Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 3 October 3. Copies of the warrants were provided to Panamanian law enforcement officials. DEA Special Agents Michael Chavarria and Joseph Evans then arrested Mejia and Rios and transported them Section 959(c) further provides:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-13347.OP2.html">UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ (10/17/2001, NO. 00-13347)<BR></A><BR>
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/983597.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Riga's conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant James Smithers was convicted of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021485.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Any one of these errors standing alone may have been harmless. The errors were substantially prejudicial to Kozlowski's case. Kozlowski was employed as football coach at Bethel by the Hampton City School Board under one year contracts that were annually renewed by the Board. He testified that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4FD9F4A0F12BA8F88256E7C0083884E/$file/0210325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question of first impression that we must resolve is whether. Both Miguel Viayra and Manuel Guerra argued that they were forced to work at the marijuana cultivation site and had no reasonable opportunity to escape. After the Rule 29 briefs were filed. After the appeal was filed. We address the government's argument that the defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal were untimely under Rule 29(c)(1) and invalid because Rule 47 requires motions to be made in writing. [1] Motions for judgment of acquittal must be made within seven days after the verdict or the discharge of the jury or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1584.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Kathleen Bucholtz and Katherine F. With him on the brief were Vincent J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert B. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). BACKGROUND Ford is a major importer of automobiles and automobile parts from all over the world. Specifically with its methods for handling the declaration of value for imported goods the price of which is subject to change after importation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013447.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Drug quantity is an element of the offense that must be charged in the indictment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0412p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cromer asserts the following grounds for reversal: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. (2) the district court plainly erred by allowing a witness to testify about hearsay statements made by a confidential informant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR>
Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1588.html">STATE CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. CONDOTTE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John H. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With them on the brief was <u>Harvey S. Charging them with patent infringement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The State was dismissed from the case. State Contracting has appealed the district court s ruling that the contractors infringement was not willful.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For their part. The contractors have appealed from the judgment on a number of grounds. State Paving applied for and was issued two patents related to the subject matter of the VECP: U.S. An auger rotates to cut through the soil and create the hole.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Cementitious material can then be pumped through the central channel of the auger so that when a retaining means or valve in the auger is opened. L. 4.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>The 455 patent contains three apparatus claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Claim 1 is representative:</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='margin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1408.html">THE U.S. V. ZIEGLER<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/733B21FA0EEF5EE788256AE20059A0F9/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1808.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. The district court ruled that all rulings applied to all defendants and motions joining co defendants' motions were unnecessary. That he was paid $150 for each one eighth kilogram of cocaine packaged. Nez Matta testified that by the time the drug operation was located at the Coral Beach mesa in 1991. The brothers were selling Santiago Lugo's heroin. Vila and was responsible for getting heroin to the street dealers. Guez' ability to run the drug point was in question. The Rosarios were still allowed to sell packages of heroin and cocaine. An expert witness testified that the notebooks were consistent with those kept by an illicit drug organization. He opined that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1315.html">MANILDRA MILLING V. OGILVIE MILLS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2586.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Singh could not establish before a reasonable jury that Blue Cross was not entitled to HCQIA immunity. Since we are reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment. Singh is a physician specializing in internal medicine. Singh
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/052940P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\5-9\05-2940 US V. KATZ OPN FINAL 5.4.WPD<BR></A><BR>
Harry Meyer Katz was charged in a 192 count indictment with attempted or actual distribution of Schedule III and IV controlled substances outside of the scope of medical practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). Katz lived in his office and was amenable to opening his doors to a patient in need at any hour. Katz prescribed medications to patients upon request and was suspected of violating federal drug laws. Katz was eventually indicted based upon prescriptions he wrote for fifteen people. Three of these individuals were undercover law enforcement officers sent into Dr. Each time was equipped with an audio recording device. Katz was acquitted of 15 counts relating to patients Carol and Philip Marlowe and one count relating to another patient. 24 3 reasons. Which he was immediately prescribed. Chad claimed that he was having stress and anxiety and a back problem. The prescription was later changed to Fioricet and Valium. Katz that she was under stress because she left her husband and her brother was in jail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B06D66ECFDD6901E88256E5A00707D03/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1140.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cuprill Hernandez were on joint brief for defendants Ricardo Gonzalez Navarro. Daniel Harris and Law Offices of Daniel Harris were on brief for plaintiffs Luis Bonilla. Is a companion to our decision in Bonilla v. This opinion is directed to the merits appeal of the defendants other than Volvo. Whether and to what extent Trebol and the Gonzalez defendants may have monitored the Volvo trial is unclear. They were not invited to participate in the damage phase of the Volvotrial. That phase was itself abbreviated because despite the original bifurcation order the plaintiffs and Volvo relied entirely on liability phase evidence and simply presented arguments to the jury. The damage verdict against Volvo was delivered by the jury on August 1. These defendants were given telephone notice that a hearing on the matter was scheduled for August 29. This order was not entered until August 27. Neither motion was acted upon prior to August 29. Was this:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1360.html">TROVAN V. SOKYMAT SA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/053318P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allen Nicklasson was found guilty by a jury in a Missouri state court of firstdegree murder and was sentenced to death. The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. Once the car was restarted. Drummond's body was found eight days later. Nicklasson and Skillicorn were later arrested while hitchhiking in California.2 Following the imposition of his sentence. A divided court held that the voir dire was constitutionally sufficient and found no error in the trial court's determination that the jury strikes were for legitimate reasons. Nicklasson's motion for post conviction relief was also denied. We may not grant a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any issue decided by the Missouri state courts unless the decision
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031255p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1308.html">ADT CORP V. LYDALL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/450ED6D1B8B5D24688256E5A00707B7E/$file/9956061.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Defendants contend the employees are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA because they are professional. Executive or administrative employees who were at all times compensated on a salary basis. The employees do not dispute that their duties were executive. Argue that they were not compensated in a manner consistent with a sal7124 ary basis because they were subject to partial week suspensions for violations of rules unrelated to safety. An employee is considered to be paid on a salary basis if his pay
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031255pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/447EE9A0AF42375988256E5A00707C4F/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964916.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Linney was appointed counsel for Stevie Twitty. Linney was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly. Linney told the court that he was not prepared for trial and then. Jury selection in the Twitty case was scheduled to take place at approximately noon.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2231.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Following their arrest for being in a municipal park after it was closed. It was after 2:00 in the morning. What Plaintiffs apparently did not encounter was a sign listing the park's hours of operation. Officer Sholtis was off duty. Was wearing an authorized duty uniform. Aware that the park was closed. Compliance with this instruction was something less than ideal. The car was already occupied by several other teenagers. Informed the occupants of the car that the park was closed and advised them to go home. Tanberg was leaving the area. That he would have to turn his back on one woman to pursue the other. Tanberg's glasses were dislodged and broken during the arrest. Where the women were ultimately examined by emergency medical technicians from the <hr> Albuquerque Fire Department. The women were later transported to a police substation where they were kept. It is agreed that Ms. Sholtis were then transported to a county detention center. Plaintiffs insist that Officer Sholtis was responsible for the injury to Ms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952873P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nancy Thompson were tenured associate professors in the dental hygiene program at the University of Iowa. Was a separate department within the College of Dentistry. Professor Brine was the chair of the department. All of the faculty and students in the dental hygiene program were women. The causes of action were based on the first and fourteenth amendments (through 42 U.S.C. § 1983). On the disparate impact members from that program then moved into another department within the Students already enrolled in the program were permitted to continue until they graduated. No new students were enrolled 22 claim based on Title VII. A requirement that she have her department chair's permission to order supplies. The plaintiffs have directed us to nothing that establishes their right to be so included. gives them such a right. We see no evidence before at least one of the review committees. other than timing tending to establish that the challenged exclusions of the plaintiffs were because of their allegations of sex discrimination. 44 Timing alone is not enough in the circumstances of this case. petition for cert. filed (U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/95-8682.man.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (9/21/1998, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR>
Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0043p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death by a three judge panel in Ohio state court. That his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution had been violated when he was denied the 1 VON CLARK DAVIS. Because the decisions in the Ohio courts rejecting this contention and upholding the sentencing order were both contrary to and unreasonable applications of the rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Skipper v. Lying on the pavement approximately six feet outside the front door of the Legion was the deceased victim. One of the entrance wounds suggested that the muzzle of the murder weapon was within four to twenty inches of the victim's head at the time the weapon was fired. The shooting was witnessed by Reginald Denmark and Cozette Massey. As they were walking. Another shot was fired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for CIGNA Fire Insurance. Clair & Cava was on brief for MacDonald & Johnson. Before us are BOWNES. CIGNA Fire Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Corrected opinion filed 2/14/03 is vacated. Was tried and convicted of first degree murder for killing Raymond E. Seven African Americans were seated on the jury. One of whom was later removed for cause during the trial. Allen's fate was finally decided by a jury of six blacks and six whites. 2 At sentencing. The jury was instructed. That they should
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1275.html">EXXON CHEMICAL V. LUBRIZOL CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1819.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. Were in possession of firearms inside Pete & Mary's Bar. Because Officer Leedberg was involved in another case on August 14. The confidential informant told Officer Leedberg that Lewis and Starks were again in 3 possession of firearms in Pete & Mary's Bar. He stated that he had seen the firearms and the informant then described to Officer Leedberg how Lewis and Starks were dressed. The officers were in an unmarked police cruiser and were dressed in street clothes. 4 Officers Leedberg and Keating were rapidly approaching the D'Angelo's parking lot in their unmarked police car. Who was still conducting surveillance from the used car lot adjacent to the D'Angelo's parking lot. We note that the district court is entrusted with deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing and we will not overrule the refusal to convene an evidentiary hearing unless the district court is shown to have abused its discretion. Lewis and Starks have made no such showing. Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress are required only when a defendant makes a sufficient showing that a warrantless search has occurred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1408.html">MOTOROLA V. INTERDIGITAL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08878B3F87AA23AB88256B970082A04D/$file/9935932.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Tracey L. Of counsel was Maureen A. The trial court ruled there was no significant prejudice to Bannum. Past performance on other government contracts was the most important criteria. The CEFs are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0452E7A0BAF1DA2D88256AA7007D2E20/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A6349EF207C88D3D88256A62008338EE/$file/9956061.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Defendants contend the employees are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA because they are professional. Executive or administrative employees who were at all times compensated on a salary basis. The employees do not dispute that their duties were executive. Argue that they were not compensated in a manner consistent with a sal7124 ary basis because they were subject to partial week suspensions for violations of rules unrelated to safety. An employee is considered to be paid on a salary basis if his pay
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981701.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1279p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was substituted as plaintiff. Holbrook argues that the trial judge's conduct was unfair and requests a new trial before a different judge. We will reverse and remand the cause for a new trial. Was minimal and could not have caused mesothelioma. On its conclusion that mesothelioma and its cause is difficult to diagnose. Or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The district court makes preliminary determinations whether the proposed expert witness is qualified and whether the testimony to be given is admissible under Rule 702.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016199.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although appellants were tried together. Their claims on appeal are largely distinct. We conclude that no claim advanced by either appellant is meritorious. Jernigan was driving a type of tow truck known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3558821EDBDF01AB88256E5A00707ACF/$file/9910334.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was not because he was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/973579P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The failure to ensure that one of the state's witnesses was sequestered during jury selection and while other witnesses were testifying. Holding that it was a violation of the confrontation clause to allow the prosecutor to introduce alleged impeachment evidence that suggested that Kurt Novaock. Novaock's wife subsequently destroyed (the district court's opinion is not entirely clear about whether the district court also considered the introduction of that evidence to be prosecutorial misconduct). Ashker were tried separately. Asserting the same five grounds for relief that were contained in his original petition to the district court. Thus that he was 3 procedurally barred from bringing them in a federal court. Ashker alleges that his due process rights were violated by the prosecutor's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. That evidence was a sketch showing that tire tracks in the victim's yard measured 71 inches from center to center. The sketch was exculpatory. That it was not Mr. Ashker's citations of testimony from various witnesses at his state trial and at a hearing on his first petition for a state writ of habeas corpus (the transcripts from both of which we have read) do not.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR>
Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115313.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed. While he was in college. Hall was commissioned back into the Army. The Halls initially were stationed at Fort Dix. Hall testified at sentencing that the separations were due to marital problems involving perceived financial difficulties. Making noises for almost an hour that indicated he was banging her head against the wall. Hall was overheard saying.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1002.html">YORK PRODUCTS V. CENTRAL TRACTOR FARM<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2166.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Collora</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. Petitioner argued that (1) the trial court's denial of defense counsel's motion for a continuance at the beginning of the trial was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411911.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The facts are recited verbatim from the opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal from Jones's conviction and sentence. He was sleeping with his ten year old brother. Was sleeping with their parents. Tony's grandmother was sleeping by herself in a third bedroom of the home. Tony was awakened by a disturbance inside the home. When the light in his bedroom was turned on. Was unable to do so due to his injuries. All four had been severely wounded and there was blood all over them. Charlie and Brenda responded when Tony asked if anyone was still alive. His parents were dead. Were treated for their wounds. Who was standing in the doorway to Charlie's bedroom. His mother and father were both moaning as the appellant repeatedly stabbed them. Charlie was hit in the head several times. She stated that Giles was the one that shot her. He was shot once through the heart and once in the left arm. He was stabbed. Embry testified that Carl Nelson was alive when he was stabbed in the neck.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2275-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was decided by a two judge panel. Circuit Judge: At issue in this appeal is whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denise Cote. Was authorized to enter an injunction ordering an Alabama state court to postpone the trial of a related case until after the District Court had completed its own trial. To a date no earlier than sixty days following the completion of a class action trial that is scheduled to begin in the District Court on January 10. Who are not plaintiffs in the securities litigation in the District Court. We conclude that the District Court's injunction was barred by the Anti Injunction Act. That an injunction postponing the Alabama action was therefore
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2002.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ndez</U> and <U>William Estrella Law Offices PSC</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D33D1EE4CD5317B788256A23005B515B/$file/9910334.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was not because he was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/01-15313.opn.html">HALL V. HEAD (10/25/2002, NO. 01-15313)<BR></A><BR>
Finding that Hall's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the sentencing phase of his trial. Concluding that counsel was not otherwise constitutionally ineffective and that Hall was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or access to further psychological testing. Although we agree with the district court that the underlying conviction was devoid of any constitutional error. That the denial of a hearing and access was proper. We are not convinced that the sentencing portion of Hall's trial was constitutionally flawed. The essential facts are undisputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0405p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of (1) his trial counsel's failure to obtain a neuropsychologist and pharmacologist to testify at Clark's suppression hearing and trial about Clark's inability to waive his rights against self incrimination voluntarily and knowingly. Are excerpted from State v. Was shot and killed during an armed robbery of the establishment. The victim was working alone and appellant demanded money. The victim told appellant that there was no money. Handed appellant approximately $60 from the cash drawer and told him that was all of the money on the premises. The victim responded that there was no more money. Appellant was arrested after allegedly committing an assault and robbery at the Ohio Citizens Bank. Was arraigned in the Toledo Municipal Court for the assault and robbery at the bank. The public defender was aware that appellant was a suspect in the Manning murder. Appellant was taken to St. Appellant was released from the hospital and taken to the Toledo Police Detective Bureau where he was questioned by Detective James Lagger and Detective Sergeant Przeslawski.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Glen Coe appeals the denial of habeas relief regarding the Tennessee state courts' determination that he is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The trial court determined that Coe was entitled to a hearing on this issue because he had satisfied a threshold showing that there existed a genuine disputed issue regarding his competency to be executed. The hearing was held from January 24 to January 28. 2000 that Coe is competent to be executed. Coe filed in federal district court an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Tennessee courts' determination that he is competent for execution under Ford. Further briefing and an appellate oral argument are not necessary. Wainwright This circuit has never been presented with the opportunity to examine the adequacy of a state's procedures to determine whether a death row prisoner is competent to be executed pursuant to Ford v. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from executing a prisoner who is insane. Justice Powell concluded that prisoners will be considered insane for the purposes of competency to be executed when they
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-1427.htm">96-1427 -- WEBB V. ABF FREIGHT SYSEEM INC. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
124 for the appellee on his claim that he was wrongfully fired from his job as a delivery truck driver on trumped up charges after his delivery truck skimmed the underside of some tree branches. That the real reason for his discharge was retaliation for his union activities. ABF alleged that Webb had violated his contractual duty to report immediately
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/987416.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is not challenging the merits of the state conviction for 2 which he is presently incarcerated. He contends that because a former conviction for which he is no longer incarcerated or under any parole restraint was tainted by a constitutional infirmity. That conviction was improperly considered when he was sentenced for his second offense. We must first decide whether the conviction of hisfirst offense was considered by the sentencing judge in the matter for which he is presently incarcerated. If we find such jurisdiction we must then examine his first conviction to determine whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel. If we agree with this contention then we must decide what remedy is available to him. When the local police were called to a high school graduation party at the home of Carol Ann Frank. Testimony was presented that Appellant attended the party along with his brothers. Apparently picked sides and a grand donnybrook was had by all until Carol Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1781.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Burpee and Burpee & DeMoura were on brief. There was a damages verdict of over $7 million. We believe there was error in the striking of post judgment motions and that the claims were timely filed under the Massachusetts discovery rule. I. Background 3 We recite the facts as the jury and district court could have found them. The wastewater was fed through pipes. The polymers were to attach to the 4 contaminants and then aggregate them to form larger particles. The floc was to settle out of the water and form sludge at the bottom of a clarifying tank. Was absolutely critical to the success of the wastewater treatment system. One mechanism designed to create the necessary turbulence is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1506.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Bruce M. With him on the brief were Francis D. With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel was Kenneth A. 450 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1806.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-2618.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L (3/15/2001, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5209.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 32.1. <hr> Background(1) Schulte was born on June 9. Three of those positions are particularly relevant to our discussion. When Schulte was fifty nine. Certain other identifying characteristics of the applicants are redacted. The position for which Schulte applied in 2000 was in processing and distribution. Schulte's KSAs were deemed adequate and she was interviewed. She was not selected for the position. She initiated a claim of gender discrimination through the Postal Service's Equal Employment (1) The background facts are drawn largely from the district court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law. <hr> Opportunity (EEO) process. Who was then sixty years old. Schulte was notified in June 2002 that she was not selected for an interview because her KSA answers were deficient.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-2493_034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All defendants were charged with conspiring. Allen was in charge of the operation. Before the drugs were resold. Crack cocaine was referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4B4B3C3D9B71FCC88256D4E007A82D7/$file/0199014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Larry David Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. As they were driving. She first tried to end his advances by telling him she was a lesbian. She was finally able to persuade him to stop by telling him that she would have sex with him in a motel in town. While Davis was pumping gas. Saying that she was returning to New York within days. When asked what he was doing. It was there that he met Dawn Holman. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the store smoking marijuana when a man. That woman was Dawn Holman. Holman's body was found around 5 a.m. by a greenskeeper at a nearby golf course. Her car was partially in a ditch about DAVIS v. The front passenger door was heavily damaged. Appeared to have hit a nearby telephone pole. The medical examiner testified that Holman's body showed evidence of sexual assault: her body was found with her bra pulled down below her chest. She was strangled. Her anus was dilated and smeared with fecal matter. Noted that her skirt was heavily stained with semen and fecal material.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/052456P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal and his motion for post conviction relief was denied. Smulls was charged with first degree murder. For the record was a black female. Sidney are based both upon what I observed during our voir dire and based upon my experience in trying criminal lawsuits. Which has exceeded 50 cases in this courthouse including several cases before this Court in the nine years that I have been a prosecuting attorney. Sidney was very silent during all of the questioning. I observed at one point during my questioning concerning the death penalty a glare on her face as I was questioning that area. She was seated in the back row. The only response I was able to get out of Ms. Sidney today was when I asked her about her occupation. At first she responded with what I though [sic] was a very irritated answer. She indicated that she is a mail sorter for Monsanto 2 Company. Post Office with great suspicion in that they have generally in my experience in many of the trials that I've had are very disgruntled.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0178a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Robert Carl Foley was convicted of murder in Kentucky and sentenced to death. Were gathered at the Foley home when Foley returned from a car auction with his friend Danny Joe Bryant. Who was intoxicated and belligerent. You caused me to have to kill my partner.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004197.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Keith Watson were convicted of participating in a large scale methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy in Norfolk. Levenite was sentenced to 94 months' imprisonment. Saucier organized a coast tocoast drug distribution network which was supplied by Juan Felix in California. Several members of the conspiracy were also members of the Renegade Motorcycle Club (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-8682.ma2.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (3/29/1999, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR>
Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974080.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 97 4080 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That it is inaccurate in other respects. A written order to the same effect was issued the next day. Wood states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/031800p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a final judgment in a criminal case. Wright was convicted and sentenced for conspiring to transport stolen property in interstate commerce. W right was the pastor of the New Mt.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-8682.ma2.html">COLLIER V. TURPIN (3/29/1999, NO. 95-8682)<BR></A><BR>
Collier was convicted in the Superior Court of Catoosa County. Collier was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. The victim was a deputy sheriff. Collier primarily challenges the district court's conclusion that his death sentence is not constitutionally infirm. The superior court impermissibly limited the scope of the mitigating evidence that he was permitted to present to the jury during the sentencing phase of his trial. His attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present evidence of his background and character that likely would have led the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than of death. We conclude that Collier's counsel were ineffective. The Catoosa County Sheriff's Department was notified. He was apprehended by Tennessee law enforcement before he reached his home. Collier was placed in a lineup and identified as the person who had robbed the floral shop and the four customers. Collier was indicted by a Catossa County grand jury for felony murder.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She claimed were due to the negligence of the doctors who performed the surgery. MeritCare responded that such complications were common in this type of procedure and they were not at fault. She underwent emergency surgery for an infection in her abdominal cavity and a significant part of her small intestine was removed. The jury could have decided in favor of either party 2 based on the evidence presented at trial. That the defendants presented compelling expert testimony supporting their contention that the plaintiffs' injuries could have occurred without any negligence on the part of the defendant physicians. Because there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could find in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law is [denied]. 3 Klisch v. Klisch argues that her motion for a new trial should have been granted because the four jury instructions were improper and were impermissibly biased in favor of MeritCare. The jury would not have found for MeritCare.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C301AB1B78750E5388256F390079A333/$file/0150082.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suzanne Schoenberg Sanchez (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/991078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Gandolfo Albanese was charged with conspiring to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994). Albanese was convicted in a third proceeding and sentenced to 360 months of incarceration. I. Albanese was convicted for conspiring with two other men. Bartels was a paid cooperating witness for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). FBI agents were monitoring the purported drug transaction from an adjoining room. Albanese and LanFranca were charged in federal court for their role in the conspiracy. Albanese was charged in state court for Riley's death. Because LanFranca was on supervised release at the time of his arrest. The Government also moved to have his release revoked. Presided over the revocation hearing and all other federal proceedings relevant to this appeal. 2 2 Albanese's federal criminal trial was scheduled on three separate occasions. He was convicted and subsequently sentenced. Testifying that LanFranca was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-3080.opa.html">FOREHAND V. FLORIDA STATE HOSP. AT CHATTAHOOCHEE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Forehand v. Their appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in decertifying the class ten years after the case was filed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Forehand applied for and was denied promotion to Ward Supervisor by the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/011036p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking relief from his state conviction on grounds his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. No appeal was taken from either the judgment of sentence or the trial court's ruling denying the counseled motion to withdraw the guilty plea. B. First Petition for Post Conviction Relief Under State Law Lewis is presently an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh where he is serving a 30 to 60 year sentence imposed by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-8102.htm">98-8102 -- U.S. V. WORMAN -- 04/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1913p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F53F340593FE73888256E5A00707D9D/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988166.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 We conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the supreme court to set aside the conviction on the ground that petitioner had been denied the equal protection right recognized by Batson v. The accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/011899P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hall was convicted in Missouri circuit court of first degree murder and sentenced to death. After the judgment and the denial of post conviction relief were affirmed. Bill White was shot at close range while working at his jewelry store in Springfield. One was his former wife. With whom he was then living. The other was Kimball Morton who had first met Hall in the early 1980s when they shared a prison cell. Hall was indicted for first degree murder. Donna Hicks testified that she woke around 10:00 a.m. on the day of the murder to discover that Hall and his car were gone. Hall returned to their apartment around 11:00 a.m. and asked that she drive him to White's jewelry store to have a broken necklace fixed. She reported that Hall said several times that he had killed White because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Defendant is a former professor at Ohio State University's School of Business. Between 1991 and 2004 he was married to Kristina Stephan Blackwell (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054330p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were charged with several counts of theft. Are not excluded from the § 666(d)(1) definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1798.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Perlmutter was on brief for appellant. Fox was on brief for appellee. By the time they extinguished the blaze the PROWLER was still afloat but burned almost to its gunnels. Panek also alleged that Concordia should have prevented the PROWLER from sinking by adequately securing it to the dock while it was still afloat. The case was tried to the district court with an advisory jury. It also found for Panek on his claims that Concordia was negligent and breached its contractual duty to secure the boat by 2 failing to remove the hull of the boat from the water when it was still floating. Was captioned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C35DD8755B28039788256E530077F226/$file/0157065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGinest alleges that he was placed in dangerous working conditions because of his race. McGinest claims that he was denied a promotion in late 1998 due to his race and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. GTE responds that it was unable to promote him due to a hiring freeze. The court found that the incidents comprising the hostile work environment claim were sporadic. It found that McGinest was unable to produce sufficient evidence that GTE's stated reason for failing to promote him was a pretext. GTE SERVICE CORP. 3007 whether the denial of the promotion was prompted by a discriminatory motive. I. BACKGROUND George McGinest is an African American employee of GTE. McGinest was initially hired as a lineman. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. Although GTE is now owned by Verizon. We continue to refer to it by the name under which it was sued. 1 3008 MCGINEST v. Although the majority of these incidents were not accompanied by explicit racial comments. McGinest testified at his deposition that Noson's behavior and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9710.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It ruled that the jury was improperly instructed at the sentencing phase of Noland's trial as to its consideration of mitigating circumstances. The writ should have been denied and we therefore reverse in part and affirm in part. I. Noland and Susan Milton Noland were married for nine years prior to their separation on March 3. Reback was of the opinion that Noland was mentally ill and dangerous. The record does not indicate when Noland was released from the hospital. She informed Noland by letter where she and the children were living. He asked her when she was coming back to Charlotte. You will come back. You'll have to come back. Was watching television with two friends in the living room of 3 her home in Charlotte. This house was the same one that had previously been occupied by Noland and Susan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952634P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were in a car parked in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/973944P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury convicted brothers Everett and Randall Hall and Roy Hall (who is not related to Everett and Randall Hall) of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it. Hall asserts that he did not know that the alleged silencer was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEC17EC549D71DC88256B2900629026/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-3080.opa.html">FOREHAND V. FLORIDA STATE HOSP. AT CHATTAHOOCHEE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Forehand v. Their appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred in decertifying the class ten years after the case was filed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Forehand applied for and was denied promotion to Ward Supervisor by the Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1330p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on March 6. 1995 before the appeal was resolved. Judge Mansmann was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Honorable Jane A. It would have discharged Delli Santi in any event. Since there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We will vacate the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense for CNA. We will also vacate the district court's conditional grant of a new trial because. The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence. We will. We will return this case to the district court for entry of judgment on the jury verdict. She was a first party claims handler. Although CNA's home office is located in Chicago. When Farah told her this was untrue and there were two men in field positions at grade level 36 (a higher level). I didn't think it was right.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2312.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rodriguez Suris & Godreau were on consolidated briefs. Lance Belsome was on brief. With whom Will Kemp and Monita F. Were on brief. Should expenses indigenous to a court's handling of mass disaster litigation be reallocated once the winners and losers have been judicially determined? Finding that the court's abrupt slamming of these doors was improvident. Among the many 2 successful innovations that brought the litigation to a celeritous conclusion were (1) the creation of a Joint Document Depository (JDD). Each of whom was responsible for dispersing filings among his or her constituents. The court periodically requisitioned fresh monies as funds on hand were depleted. The orders were silent as to (i) whether or not the court planned to readjust defendants' contributions in light of future developments. 1Because the mechanics of the allocation process are not critical for present purposes. The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) and the defendant San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Corporation were assessed a total of $100.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1085.html">EARTH ISLAND V. SECRETARY OF STATE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI3NDYtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2746-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 in which the Supreme Court tightened the requirements for finding that a defendant has 1 This decision is frequently abbreviated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="sw |
