IF IT ISN T IN THE RECORD, IT NEVER HAPPENED: PRESERVING ERRORS, EVIDENCE, AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL
|
|
- Doreen Griffith
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IF IT ISN T IN THE RECORD, IT NEVER HAPPENED: PRESERVING ERRORS, EVIDENCE, AND ARGUMENT FOR APPEAL Michael C. Subit Frank Freed Subit & Thomas 705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA P: F: MSubit@frankfreed.com Web: www://frankfreed.com We all make mistakes. Appellate lawyers spend their careers dealing with error. If you represent the appellant, then your job is to convincing the appellate court that a serious error has been made, one adversely affecting your client s rights. If you represent the appellee, then your job is to argue no errors occurred, but if they did, they were harmless. Even better, the party who won below would like to be able to argue that his or her opponent did not preserve whatever errors there might have been. If that is the case, the party claiming error has a particularly tough road to reversal. If you are that party, the last thing you want to be addressing is a claim that you or your predecessor failed to preserve the asserted error, or even worse, invited it. Likewise, no appellate lawyer likes to hear the court say something to the effect of: I don t see where you made that argument below, counsel. General Rules for Preserving Error There are no federal appellate rules that deal directly with preserving error. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1)(A) requires that an appeal in civil cases be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(3). Section 7 of Rule 3 defines when an order is entered. If the order is not a judgment or other entry 1
2 that Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1) requires to be entered in a separate document, the appeal times runs from when the order is entered in the civil docket. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(7)(A)(i). If the appeal is from an order required to be in a separate document, the time to appeal runs from when the separate document is entered. If the court fails to sign a separate document, then the time to appeal starts 150 days after the entry of the nonseparate judgment or order on the civil docket sheet. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(7)(B). Any practiced trial lawyer knows that much about the law of evidence is not contained in the[] written rules. Fusco v. GM Corp., 11 F.3d 259, 262 (1 st Cir. 1993). Federal Rules of Evidence 103 provides a general framework regarding the preservation of error. A reviewing court may not generally review an allegedly erroneous ruling unless: In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)-(2). If a party unsuccessfully objects to evidence on one or more grounds, this will not preserve for appeal a successful objection that could have been made on some other ground, but was not. McKnight ex rel Ludwig v. Johnson, 36 F.3d 1396, 1407 (8 th Cir. 1994). On the other hand, if a party successfully excludes or admits evidence based on a theory that the appellate court later rejects, the prevailing party should be able to assert on appeal alternative grounds to sustain the trial court s ruling under the principle that the appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Frederick v. Marquette Nat. Bank, 911 F.2d 1, 2 (7 th Cir. 1990). It makes no 2
3 sense to require a party to give the lower court secondary or tertiary bases for an evidentiary decision the district court has already made in its favor. A ruling on the admissibility of evidence may come at trial or beforehand, such as on a motion in limine. If an appropriate objection or offer is made and the court makes a firm ruling, a party does not need to reiterate it: Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim or error for appeal. Fed. R. Evid. 103(a). The key to application of this rule is whether the court made a definitive ruling on the evidence. At a minimum there has to be an utterance from the court that constitutes a ruling. Sometimes a judge will ask counsel not to proceed with a line of questioning while the court considers whether to allow it. The proponent of the evidence must subsequently reinitiate the line of questioning or ask the court for a ruling to preserve an objection for appeal. Wyller v. Fairchild Hiller Corp., 503 F.2d 506, 509 (9th Cir. 1974). If the court s initial ruling is merely tentative or qualified, the party will have to reassert its objection or offer at trial to preserve it for appeal. For example, if the court has denied a motion in limine to exclude evidence, the party objecting to that evidence must ordinarily re-assert its objection at trial to preserve it for appeal. Fusco, 11 F.3d at 262. This situation will arise frequently, as many courts are reluctant to exclude evidence before trial. On the other hand, where a court has granted a motion to exclude evidence before trial, the proponent of that evidence ordinarily does not have to raise the issue again at trial as long as the appropriate offer of proof was made. Id. at 263. There may, 3
4 however, be some cases where changed circumstances by the time of trial will make it unreasonable for a party to rely on an in limine ruling. Id. at 663 n.3. A party s failure to make an objection to testimony or evidence will not generally be cured by a motion to strike after the fact. Courts won t let a party listen through testimony without any objection in the hope that something good comes of it, and if it doesn t, move to strike after-the fact. See McKnight, 36 F.3d at On the other hand, a motion to strike will be effective where the inadmissibility of the evidence or testimony was not apparent from the get-go. Id.. The general rule is that an objection must be made at the earliest possible point that the need for an objection became apparent or else the party waives the objection. Id. A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary. When the ruling or order is requested or made, a party need only state the action that it wants the court to take or objects to, along with the grounds for the request or the objection. Failing to object does not prejudice a party who had no opportunity to do so when the ruling or order was made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 46. The degree of precision with which counsel is required to argue during the heat of trial to preserve an issue for appeal must be judged, among other things, in accordance with the leeway with which the court has allowed the lawyer to make his or her argument. Beech Aircraft v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, n.22 (1988). While the case law talks about the waiver of objections, waiver requires the intentional relinquishment of known rights. U.S v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The operative concept is really forfeiture. Id. In the context of evidentiary objections, it is not true that the law abhors a forfeiture. Cf. Osbourn v. Prudential Ins. Co., of Am., 453 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8 th Cir. 2006). Most of the time the rule is You snooze... you lose. 4
5 Errors Plain, Harmless, and Invited The Rules of Evidence provide a narrow escape valve for forfeited errors: Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court. Fed. R. Evid. 103(d). Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). The U.S. Supreme Court has unhelpfully defined plain error as clear or obvious error. Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. Plain error is one of those I know it when I see it legal concepts. The mere fact that an error affects substantial rights will not make it plain. An error that does not affect a substantial right of the party is not a reversible error even if it has been preserved since by definition such an error was harmless. Johnson v. William Ellis & Sons. Iron Works, Inc., 609 F.2d 820, 823 (5 th Cir. 1980). Harmless errors must be disregarded and so are not worth preserving in the first place: Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence or any other error by the court or a party is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise, disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party s substantial rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. The best test for plain error may be as follows: If the appellate court hears the evidence admitted or excluded without objection and thinks Oh, my God! Holy Cow! or something to that effect, you have a case of plain error. If plain error is the last refuge of the desperate, invited error is the Ninth Circle of the Appellate Inferno. Invited error is one that the party claiming error himself caused such as asking the court to give a legally erroneous jury instruction. There is case law holding that invited error cannot be the basis for a reversal on appeal. E.g. U.S. v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 660 (3 d Cir. 1990). On the other hand, some courts seem to allow 5
6 for a reversal of an invited error where there has been a miscarriage of justice. U.S. v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921, 929 (3 d Cir. 2008). This is fairly close to the standard for a reversal for plain error. See Olano, 507 U.S While a good argument can be made that an omitted objection is itself an invited error (on the assumption that the lower court would have made the right ruling if the objection had been raised), in practice appellate courts apply an even higher standard for the reversal of an invited error as opposed to merely a plain error. Rules Regarding Waiver of Specific Errors Pleadings Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1) provides that a party waives any objection to lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process if such defense is not made by an allowed Rule 12 motion or included in a responsive pleading or amendment to a pleading allowed as of right. Only one motion under Rule 12 with respect to these defenses may be made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2). Summary Judgment Record A supporting or opposing affidavit or declaration must be made on personal knowledge, set out such facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or part of a paper is referred to in the affidavit or declaration, a sworn or certified copy must be attached or served at the same time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). A timely motion to strike any nonconforming declaration must be made in order to preserve any objection. Even then, on appeal, the excluded material will be part of the summary judgment record. The party 6
7 whose materials were struck will need to file a separate appeal of the order granting the motion to preserve it for appeal. Jury Trial A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly served and filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(d). When a case is removed to federal court, a jury demand must be filed within 14 days of the service of the notice of removal if no demand has been made in the state court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(3)(B). Jury Verdict A party waives the right to a jury trial on any issue of fact raised by the pleadings or evidence but not submitted to the jury, unless, before the jury retires, the party demands its submission to the jury. If the party does not demand submission, the court may make a finding on the issue. If the court makes no finding, it is considered to have made a finding consistent with its judgment on the special verdict. Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a)(3). Jury Instructions Before giving instructions to the jury, the court must give the parties the opportunity to object to its proposed instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(2). A party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1). On appeal, a party may assign error to a jury instruction given only if the party properly objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1)(A). A party may assign error to a jury instruction that was not given only if the party properly requested the instruction and unless the court rejected the request in a definitive ruling on the record must also object to the failure to give the instruction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1)(B). A party does not 7
8 have to raise an objection to a jury instruction in the trial court where a solid wall of appellate authority would have made any objection futile. Costa v. Desert Place Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 864 (9 th Cir. 2002) (en banc), aff d, 539 U.S. 90 (2003). Otherwise, a court may consider a plain error in the instructions that has not been preserved as required only if the error affects substantial rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2). The Rules About Arguments It is a general rule that appellate courts do not pass on arguments not raised below. Singleton v. Wulff, 426 U.S. 106, 120 (1976). This means litigants must first raise an argument in the trial court. Golden Bridge Tech Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There are exceptions such as new legislation or an intervening Supreme Court decision. New counsel on appeal doesn t count as a sufficient reason. Id. An appellate court may announce the correct rule of law for a case even if neither party has articulated it as long as the issue to which the rule of law applies is properly before the court. Id. at There is also an exception to avoid injustice. One example of this is where no court will ever have the opportunity to consider a purely legal argument raised for the first time if the lower court judgment is simply affirmed. U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of CA, 384 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9 th Cir. 2004). Although the exceptions to the rule against considering new arguments on appeal are narrow, a court will often take a liberal view of whether an argument has been raised below. There is no bright line for deciding whether an argument has been raised in the trial court. Whittaker Corp v. Execuair Corp., 955 F.2d 510, 515 (9 th Cir. 1992). It is enough that the argument be raised sufficiently for the district court to have ruled on it. Id. If a party raises a legal issue in the district court and makes a general argument in 8
9 support of their position, an appellate court will entertain a new subsidiary legal argument for the first time on appeal. Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2005). But a court will not consider an argument made in the trial court solely in support of one cause of action to apply to a different cause of action on appeal. Cummings v. Norton, 393 F.3d 1186, (10 th Cir. 2005) (refusing to consider argument made in trial court on failure to accommodate claim on appellate consideration of wrongful termination claim). However, it is often hard to tell the difference between a separate cause of action and an alternative theory in support of a single cause of action. An appellate court will consider an argument first made in a timely motion for reconsideration but not one first raised after final judgment has been entered. Whittaker, 955 F.2d at 515. Conclusion While it would be great if trial judges got it right all the time, that is not the world in which any of us practices law. In most situations, if a party has failed to preserve an error or an argument in the trial court, for the purposes of appeal the error never happened and the argument does not exist. Preserving error is not difficult, but critical. Failing to do can prove fatal. 9
PRESERVATION OF ERROR. Written by: Ivan B. Cooper Lightfoot, Franklin & White th Street North Birmingham, AL
PRESERVATION OF ERROR Written by: Ivan B. Cooper Lightfoot, Franklin & White 400 20 th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Presented by: Mary-Christine Sungaila - Moderator Haynes & Boone 600 Anton Blvd,
More informationUtah Court Rules on Trial Motions Francis J. Carney
Revised July 10, 2015 NOTE 18 December 2015: The trial and post-trial motions have been amended, effective 1 May 2016. See my blog post for 18 December 2015. This paper will be revised to reflect those
More information2017 All-Ohio Legal Forum. Video Replay Preserving the Record for Appeal
2017 All-Ohio Legal Forum Video Replay Preserving the Record for Appeal 1.0 General CLE Hour August 23 August 25, 2017 Cleveland Speaker Biographies Derek E. Diaz OSBA Certified Specialist in Appellate
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CON KOURTIS; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JAMES CAMERON; et
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-31177 Document: 00512864115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE : : : : : : : : : : : John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, and FAIRCHILD (TAIWAN) CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs, POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 12-540-LPS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-40563 Document: 00513754748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JOHN MARGETIS; ALAN E. BARON, Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-31-2011 USA v. Irvin Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3582 Follow this and additional
More informationCHAPTER 103. Rulings on Evidence
0011 VERSACOMP (4.2 ) COMPOSE2 (4.43) 04/27/05 (17:08) J:\VRS\DAT\04570\ARTI.GML --- r4570.sty --- POST 148 CHAPTER 103 Rulings on Evidence Summary of Illinois Law Covered in Chapter: Principle # 1: If
More informationHampden Real Estate v. Metro Mgmt Grp
2007 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-6-2007 Hampden Real Estate v. Metro Mgmt Grp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4052
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 17 1918 ANTHONY MIMMS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for
More informationTrial Motions. Motions in Limine. Civil Perspective
Trial Motions and Motions in Limine from the Civil Perspective New York State Bar Association Young Lawyers Section Trial Academy 2016 Cornell Law School - Ithaca, New York Presented by: Michael P. O Brien
More informationCase 4:12-cv Document 208 Filed in TXSD on 11/30/15 Page 1 of 13
Case 4:12-cv-01357 Document 208 Filed in TXSD on 11/30/15 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JUNIOUS VITAL, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No.
18 74 United States v. Thompson UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: January 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019) Docket No. 18 74 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
More informationThird, it should provide for the orderly admission of evidence.
REPORT The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, most state rules, and many judges authorize or require the parties to prepare final pretrial submissions that will set the parameters for how the trial will
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 14-0721 444444444444 USAA TEXAS LLOYDS COMPANY, PETITIONER, v. GAIL MENCHACA, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1252 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ESTATE OF HENRY
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA165 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1987 City and County of Denver District Court No. 13CV32470 Honorable Morris B. Hoffman, Judge Trina McGill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIA Airport
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-9307 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ARMARCION D. HENDERSON,
More informationAttorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial. records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense counsel which prevented their
Counsel s Obligation to Advise a Defendant on the Right to Testify By: Mark M. Baker 1 Attorneys handling criminal appeals will undoubtedly encounter trial records reflecting unilateral decisions by defense
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv DTKH.
Case: 15-10550 Date Filed: 02/28/2017 Page: 1 of 15 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10550 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80134-DTKH
More informationMIDLAND FUNDING LLC NO CA-0659 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL FRANKIE J. KELLY FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC VERSUS FRANKIE J. KELLY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-0659 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2008-51454, SECTION
More informationUSA v. Frederick Banks
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-29-2010 USA v. Frederick Banks Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2452 Follow this and
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Jain v. Omni Publishing, Inc., 2009-Ohio-5221.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92121 MOHAN JAIN DBA BUSINESS PUBLISHING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00077-CV JACOB T. JONES, Appellant V. SERVICE CREDIT UNION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law Hopkins County,
More informationCont Casualty Co v. Fleming Steel Co
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2011 Cont Casualty Co v. Fleming Steel Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-4524
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR. From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No C2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00376-CR SAMUEL UKWUACHU, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant Appellee From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-1202-C2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationThis opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo---- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooooo---- Sabrina Rahofy, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, Lynn Steadman, an individual; and
More informationTRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS
TRIAL EVIDENCE: MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS By: EDWARD A. MALLETT MALLETT GUIBERSON SAPER, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77002 713-236-1900 telephone 713-228-0321 facsimile edward@mgscounsel.com
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MALIKA ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 2, 2014 v No. 315234 Wayne Circuit Court ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY LC No. 11-000086-CK INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-21-2014 USA v. Robert Cooper Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 09-2159 Follow this and additional
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1212 RATES TECHNOLOGY INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. James B. Hicks, Ervin, Cohen & Jessup LLP,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LITTRELL WILLIAMS-INNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 12, 2015 v No. 319217 Wayne Circuit Court LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 11-003613-NI Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-20379 Document: 00513991832 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT GASPAR SALAS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GE OIL & GAS, United States Court of
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0001076 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I LAURA LEVI, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JOSHUA GORDON, Respondent-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationJames McNamara v. Kmart Corp
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-14-2010 James McNamara v. Kmart Corp Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2216 Follow this
More informationFor the Record: Preserving Issues for Appeal
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 24, Number 4 (24.4.9) Appellate Practice Corner Scott L. Howie Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered,
More informationTHE SECRET WEAPON: USING THE APPELLATE LAWYER AT TRIAL TO PRIME YOUR CASE FOR APPEAL
THE SECRET WEAPON: USING THE APPELLATE LAWYER AT TRIAL TO PRIME YOUR CASE FOR APPEAL MICHELLE E. ROBBERSON COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 JACKSON STREET, SUITE 100 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 OFFICE: (214) 712-9511
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
-0 Mazzei v. Money Store UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION December 27, 2012 9:15 a.m. v No. 308080 Clare Circuit Court KRIS EDWARD SITERLET, LC No. 10-004061-FH
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
17 70 cr United States v. Hoskins In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2017 Argued: January 9, 2018 Decided: September 26, 2018 Docket No. 17 70 cr UNITED STATES OF
More informationRULES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE (ALL CAMPUSES)
RULES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE (ALL CAMPUSES) CHAPTER 1720-1-5 PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING HEARINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTESTED CASE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1720-1-5-.01 Hearings
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, v. LLOYD NICKLE, Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee. Nos. 14-30204 14-30229
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Gerald S. Lepre, Jr., : Appellant : : v. : No. 2121 C.D. 2012 : Submitted: July 26, 2013 Susquehanna County Clerk of : Judicial Records and Susquehanna : County
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HENRY L. PERRY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of OCTAVIA J. EVANS, Deceased, UNPUBLISHED May 27, 2008 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 277538 Wayne Circuit Court
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Akron v. Carter, 190 Ohio App.3d 420, 2010-Ohio-5462.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CITY OF AKRON, C.A. Nos. 25037 and 25038 Appellee,
More informationGeneral Evidentiary Objections Still Valid in Maryland
Maryland Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 Article 7 General Evidentiary Objections Still Valid in Maryland Dinah S. Leventhal Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-2075-JAR ) EDWARD SERRANO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 34,031. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Carl J. Butkus, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2005 STEPHEN E. THOMPSON BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0281 September Term, 2005 STEPHEN E. THOMPSON v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND Adkins, Krauser, Rodowsky, Lawrence F., (Retired, Specially Assigned)
More informationCase 6:15-cv AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10 JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY H. WOOD Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources
More informationTHE COURTS. Title 234 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
5594 Title 234 RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. GENERAL [234 PA. CODE CHS. 1100 AND 1400] Order Promulgating Pa.R.Crim.P. 1124A and Approving the Revisions of the Comments to Pa. R.Crim.P. 1124 and
More informationCase 1:12-cv UU Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:12-cv-23300-UU Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATRICE BAKER and LAURENT LAMOTHE Case No. 12-cv-23300-UU Plaintiffs,
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL: 07/10/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationGary Sheehan Sr. v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2011 Gary Sheehan Sr. v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationCase 1:12-cv WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11
Case 1:12-cv-02663-WJM-KMT Document 64 Filed 09/05/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 Civil Action No. 12-cv-2663-WJM-KMT STAN LEE MEDIA, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT PONTE, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2012 v Nos. 298193; 298194 Washtenaw Circuit Court SANDRA HAZLETT, d/b/a HAZLETT & LC No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2005 v No. 255873 Jackson Circuit Court ALANZO CALES SEALS, LC No. 04-002074-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Kiley, 2013-Ohio-634.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 12CA010254 v. THOMAS E. KILEY Appellant
More informationLEXSEE 2009 U.S. DIST. LEXIS VERNON HADDEN, PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFEN- DANT CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-10
Page 1 LEXSEE 2009 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 69383 VERNON HADDEN, PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFEN- DANT CASE NO.: 1:08-CV-10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, BOWLING
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationClinton Bush v. David Elbert
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-14-2008 Clinton Bush v. David Elbert Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2929 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION KAIST IP US LLC, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al., Defendants. REPORT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2011 v No. 297053 Wayne Circuit Court FERANDAL SHABAZZ REED, LC No. 91-002558-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 10-0155 444444444444 IN RE SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL AND SCI TEXAS FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. D/B/A MAGIC VALLEY MEMORIAL GARDENS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationCivil Procedure - Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.: Rule 11 Sanctions, Ignorance or Vigorous Litigation Is No Excuse
Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 21 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey Article 7 January 1991 Civil Procedure - Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.: Rule 11 Sanctions, Ignorance or Vigorous Litigation
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER HARWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 10, 2006 v No. 263500 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 04-433378-CK INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2014 KRISTY S. HOLT, Appellant, v. CALCHAS, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D13-2101 [November 5, 2014] Appeal from the Circuit Court for
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued March 17, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01039-CV LEISHA ROJAS, Appellant V. ROBERT SCHARNBERG, Appellee On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-30376 Document: 00511415363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 17, 2011 Lyle
More informationFundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court
1 Fundamentals of Civil Litigation in Federal Court Faculty: Thomas Schuck, Esq. Commencing an Action - Know the facts the Law, interview the client - no matter whether plaintiff or defendant - Interview
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 546 U. S. (2006) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC., Appellant, v. JACK SCIALABBA and SHARON SCIALABBA, Appellees. No. 4D17-401 [March 7, 2018] Appeal from
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ortega et al v. The Regents of the University of California Doc. United States District Court 0 JOSEPHINE ORTEGA and WENBO YUAN, v. Case No.: -0 PSG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
More information17. Judges Panel Effective Pre-Trial Motions: The How, When, and Why of Motions in Limine
17. Judges Panel Effective Pre-Trial Motions: The How, When, and Why of Motions in Limine Moderator: E. Kyle McNew MichieHamlett, PLLC P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville VA 22902-0298 Tel: 434-951-7234 Email:
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00810-CV Laura CASTILLO and Armando Castillo Sr., Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Armando Castillo Jr., Appellants
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO W. JANUARY, an individual, No. 12-56171 and Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 736 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., v. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued October 3, 2017 Decided November
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, No v. (District of Kansas) WILLIAM J. KUTILEK,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT January 11, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-3275
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Patel v. Patel et al Doc. 113 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHAMPAKBHAI PATEL, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-17-881-D MAHENDRA KUMAR PATEL, et al., Defendants. O R D E
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-17189, 12/22/2017, ID: 10702386, DktEntry: 79-1, Page 1 of 18 No. 15-17189 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO CASINO IN PLYMOUTH and CITIZENS EQUAL RIGHTS ALLIANCE,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1314 PHONOMETRICS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, WESTIN HOTEL CO., Defendant-Appellee. John P. Sutton, of San Francisco, California, argued for
More informationFundamentals of Patent Litigation 2018
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1361 Fundamentals of Patent Litigation 2018 Co-Chairs Gary M. Hnath John J. Molenda, Ph.D. To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at (800)
More informationGARY KUZMIN, Appellant
Affirmed; Opinion Filed January 8, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01394-CV GARY KUZMIN, Appellant V. DAVID A. SCHILLER, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA RYAN DAVID SAFKA v. Appellant No. 1312 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2011 KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, SR. JOANNE BISQUERA, ET AL.
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2681 September Term, 2011 KENNETH L. BLACKWELL, SR. v. JOANNE BISQUERA, ET AL. Krauser, C.J., Berger, Kenney, James A., III (Retired, Specially
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as State v. Moorer, 2009-Ohio-1494.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 24319 Appellee v. LAWRENCE H. MOORER aka MOORE,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-187 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LOUIS CASTRO PEREZ, v. Petitioner, WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent.
More informationAntonello Boldrini v. Martin Wilson
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-13-2015 Antonello Boldrini v. Martin Wilson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court U-WIN PROPERTIES, LLC, SUSAN BOGGS, LC No CZ and LINNELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ROLONDO CAMPBELL, VALERIE MARTIN, and PAUL CAMPBELL, UNPUBLISHED November 21, 2017 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 333429 Wayne Circuit Court U-WIN
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 February 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VALERIE HUYETT, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : DOUG S FAMILY PHARMACY : : Appellee : No. 776 MDA 2014 Appeal
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
More informationSalvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2006 Salvino Steel Iron v. Safeco Ins Co Amer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1449
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2002 v No. 225562 Genesee Circuit Court PATRICK JAMES MCLEMORE, LC No. 99-004795-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information