Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
|
|
- Horatio Cunningham
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALBERT DEWAYNE BANKS (01) CHARLES FOSTER (03) PATRICIA BRIDGET FOY (04) JOHNNY LEE IVORY, III (05) MARTYE MADABUTI MADKINS, III (06) ZACHARY CARLYLE PATMON (07) OTIS DEAN PONDS (08) ANTHONY CARLYLE THOMPSON (10) WALTER BERNARD TAYLOR (12) KAREN ANTOINETTE JOHNSON (14) Case No. 13-cr DDC Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Johnson, Taylor, Thompson, Ponds and Madkins have filed motions arguing that the Court should suppress wiretap evidence because agents intercepted communications outside the territorial jurisdiction of the judge who authorized the wiretaps (Docs. 346, 349, 356, 362, 377). Other defendants have joined in their motions. The government has filed a response (Doc. 396). At a motion hearing on August 22, 2014, the Court ruled that a Kansas state court judge acting under Kansas law has no authority to authorize interception outside the judge s own judicial district. The parties have requested that the Court memorialize this ruling in a written order. This Memorandum and Order memorializes does so and, except for stylistic changes, tracks the ruling announced from the bench at the motion hearing. 1
2 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 2 of 7 Analysis A. Territorial Limits on Wiretap Authority The investigation at issue in this case led law enforcement officials for the state of Kansas to approach a Kansas state court judge, Judge David Platt, and ask him to issue orders authorizing wiretaps. The papers that law enforcement officials presented to Judge Platt make it clear: they relied on the authority granted by Kansas state law, K.S.A et seq, when they made this request. The Circuit s decision in United States v. McNulty 729 F.2d 1243 (10th Cir. 1983) explains the relationship between the federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq, and the Kansas wiretap statute. As McNulty says, [T]he federal statute itself requires our deference to [state] law on the question of the validity of the wiretap order obtained in state court under state law. Id. at 1266 (10th Cir. 1983). The relevant Kansas legal authority confines a state judge s authority to issue a wiretap order to his territorial jurisdiction. K.S.A (3). This is the limitation imposed, explicitly, by K.S.A (3) and applied by the Kansas Court of Appeals in State v. Adams, 576 P.2d 242 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). In Adams, a district court judge in Johnson County, Kansas, issued an order authorizing wire intercepts. Id. at 242. Johnson County is located within Kansas Tenth Judicial District. Id. The target phone, the interception bridge, and the monitoring station all were located in Wyandotte County, which is within Kansas Twenty-Ninth Judicial District. Id. at The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court s order suppressing evidence obtained under the wiretap order because it construed K.S.A (3) s limitation on territorial jurisdiction to mean that the judge issuing the wiretap order could only authorize interception within his judicial district. Id. at 245. Thus, the court reasoned, a district court judge sitting in Kansas Tenth Judicial District had no power to 2
3 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 3 of 7 authorize interception when the target phone, interception bridge and monitoring station all were physically located in the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District. Id. When he issued the wiretap orders at issue in this case, Judge Platt was a District Court Judge for the Eighth Judicial District of Kansas. The Eighth Judicial District of Kansas consists of Dickinson, Geary, Marion, and Morris counties. K.S.A So in the words of K.S.A (3), the Kansas legislature authorized Judge Platt to enter an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within [his] territorial jurisdiction, i.e., in those four counties only. B. Location of Interception This standard sets the table for the question that matters here: Where, in the words of K.S.A , is a phone call intercepted? Adams provides the answer, or at least some of it, and in a less than direct way. See 576 P.2d at 245. Adams makes it clear that a Kansas state court judge may order the interception of telephone calls when the monitoring station and the intercepting device are located in the judge s judicial district. Id. Here, agents monitored the wiretapped calls in Shawnee County, a place outside Judge Platt s judicial district. Judge Platt, therefore, lacked legal authority under Kansas law to issue the wiretap orders under this aspect of Adams holding. See id. The parties have not provided the Court any evidence or even any argument showing where the intercepting device was located. And the Court cannot discern from the materials provided by the parties what the intercepting device is in this wireless telephone context. But whatever the intercepting device is, the government has not contended that it was situated in the Eighth Judicial District. Thus, the Court concludes that it cannot sustain Judge Platt s wiretap orders under this second alternative of Adams. 3
4 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 4 of 7 Federal cases applying the nearly identical federal statute identify a third alternative. In United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1992), the Second Circuit held that for purposes of [the federal wiretap statute s] jurisdictional requirement, a communication is intercepted where the tapped telephone is located, among other places. Id. at (emphasis added). In United States v. Tavarez, 40 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 1994), the Tenth Circuit considered a nearly identical definition of interception contained in Oklahoma s wiretap statute. Id. at Although the facts of the case did not require the Tenth Circuit to make this holding explicit, the court approved Rodriguez s conclusion that a judge had valid wiretap authority if the tapped phones were physically located within that judges judicial district. Id. at The Court finds this approach logical and highly persuasive for two reasons. First, its reasoning is consistent with Adams. The last paragraph of Adams strongly implies that the phone s physical location at the time of the call s interception is another way for a tapped phone to fall within the scope of the issuing judge s authority. See 576 P.2d at 245 ( Where... the locations of the telephone as to which the intercept is conducted, the intercepting device and the monitoring are within the same judicial district, a district judge sitting in another judicial district has no power under [K.S.A (3)] to authorize the interception. ). Second, this reasoning comports with traditional notions about the extent of a judge s judicial power if a tangible object is physically located within a judge s judicial district, it is generally subject to that court s judicial power. C. The Government Must Prove the Wiretaps Complied with K.S.A (3) Based on this analysis, the Court concludes that the prosecution may introduce evidence about wiretapped phone calls to the extent that it can show that the tapped phone was physically located within Kansas Eighth Judicial District Dickinson, Geary, Marion and Morris 4
5 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 5 of 7 counties at the time of the call s interception. But if the tapped phone was physically located outside the boundaries of that Judicial District, the Kansas legislature did not authorize Judge Platt to order the call s interception and Kansas law mandates suppression of any evidence about that call. Adams, 576 P.2d at 244. In short, Kansas has chosen to adopt a wiretap law that is more restrictive than the provisions of Title III under federal law. That was its right, and McNulty requires the Court to honor this decision. D. The Government s Arguments The Court now turns to the three arguments made by the government. First, the government has argued that Kansas law authorizes Kansas state court judges to issue search warrants executable anywhere within the state of Kansas. Wiretap orders, the government says, are just another form of search warrants and, therefore, Judge Platt had authority to issue a wiretap order affecting any phone within the state of Kansas. Adams rejected this argument as squarely as a case could. We do not believe case law dealing generally with the subject of searches and seizures and the issuance of search warrants is applicable to the present case [ a case involving a wiretap]. Search warrants are not subject to the same strict procedural requirements and degree of judicial oversight as is electronic eavesdropping. Nothing in the search and seizure statutes expressly limits the power of [state court] district judges and associate district judges to issue warrants within the territorial jurisdiction of the judge as the [wiretapping statute] limits the issuance of electronic eavesdropping orders. 576 P.2d at Second, the Court is not persuaded by the government s argument that Kansas law permits it to apply the core concerns analysis adopted by federal law. Adams affirmed an order suppressing improperly intercepted telephone calls and it did not engage in the core 1 The government withdrew this argument after the briefing had closed. The Court nonetheless addresses the argument here because the parties have asked the Court to memorialize its reasoning as comprehensively as possible. 5
6 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 6 of 7 concerns analysis. Moreover, the core concerns analysis of Title III issues had been adopted by federal courts four years earlier, starting with the Supreme Court s decision in United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505 (1974). The core concerns analysis was plainly available for the Adams court to incorporate into its application of the Kansas wiretap statute. But the Kansas state court did not do so, and no subsequent development persuades the Court that Kansas law has adopted the core concerns analysis to decide suppression issues arising under its wiretap statute. In short, no reason currently exists to conclude that the core concerns analysis is part of Kansas law, and McNulty requires the Court to limit its analysis to Kansas law. Third, and related to the government s second argument, the government claims that State v. Bruce, 287 P.3d 919 (Kan. 2012) applied the core concerns analysis to Kansas wiretap statute. The Court disagrees. Bruce involved a provision of the Kansas wiretap statute that permitted the Attorney General to delegate its authority to apply for wiretap orders. Id. at The Kansas Supreme Court held this aspect of the state statute is more permissive than Title III and, thus Title III preempted the Kansas act on this subject. Id. at Because Title III preempted the Kansas provision, only Title III governed the issue presented in Bruce. Id. at The Kansas court thus was bound to apply federal law and this included the core concerns analysis used by federal law. The decision did not ultimately involve any application of state law, and therefore, the Court is unpersuaded by the government s reliance on State v. Bruce. Conclusion On the current state of the record, the Court cannot discern what this ruling means for the wiretaps at issue in this case. That determination depends on facts that are more granular than the record presented by the parties so far. It is incumbent on the parties to sort out these facts, but the Court emphasizes that it is the government s responsibility to (1) marshal evidence about 6
7 Case 5:13-cr DDC Document 517 Filed 11/19/14 Page 7 of 7 the particular calls it claims meet this legal standard; and (2) make all relevant evidence available to the defendants so that they can challenge it. The Court also cannot evaluate whether this ruling, if it excludes any wiretapped calls, implicates or taints other warrants or other evidence in a way that presents additional challenges for its admissibility. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT that the government come forward with evidence (if it has any) to prove the tapped phones were physically located within Kansas Eighth Judicial District Dickinson, Geary, Marion and Morris counties at the time when the calls were intercepted. The Court will postpone its rulings on defendants motions to suppress wiretap evidence (Docs. 346, 349, 356, 362, 377) pending the government s offer of proof about the location of the tapped phones at the time of the calls interception. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 18th day of November, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Daniel D. Crabtree Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge 7
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court
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 MLIVE MEDIA GROUP, doing business as GRAND RAPIDS PRESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION September 12, 2017 9:10 a.m. v No. 338332 Kent Circuit
More informationSTATUTORY PROVISIONS PROHIBITING COURTS FROM CLOSING SCHOOLS
Legislative Attorneys transforming ideas into legislation. 300 SW TENTH AVENUE SUITE 24-E TOPEKA, KS 66612 (785) 296-2321 STATUTORY PROVISIONS PROHIBITING COURTS FROM CLOSING SCHOOLS This memorandum provides
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,907 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JUSTIN GARBERG and TREVOR GARBERG, Appellees, v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationNo. 109,672 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. FLOYD W. PEW, JR., et al., Appellants,
No. 109,672 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS FLOYD W. PEW, JR., et al., Appellants, v. SHAWN SULLIVAN, Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, et al., Appellees. SYLLABUS BY
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-43 In the Supreme Court of the United States LOS ROVELL DAHDA AND ROOSEVELT RICO DAHDA, PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationNo. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. MILO A. JONES, Appellant,
No. 113,270¹ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MILO A. JONES, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and KANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellees. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Eleventh Amendment
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES. STATE OF OREGON, ) ) Case No.98CR0139MA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES STATE OF OREGON, ) ) Case No.98CR0139MA Plaintiff, ) SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS vs. ) Request for Evidentiary ) Hearing,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 108,885. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, AMI LATRICE SIMMONS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,885 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. AMI LATRICE SIMMONS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Nonsex offenders seeking to avoid retroactive application of
More informationCase3:08-cv MMC Document86 Filed12/02/09 Page1 of 8
Case:0-cv-00-MMC Document Filed/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 United States District Court For the Northern District of California CUNZHU ZHENG,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,399 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TODD ALAN TRIMMELL, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,399 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TODD ALAN TRIMMELL, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Labette District Court;
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,431. CHAD TAYLOR, Petitioner, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,431 CHAD TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. KRIS KOBACH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS, Respondent. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
More informationTestimony of Kevin S. Bankston, Policy Director of New America s Open Technology Institute
Testimony of Kevin S. Bankston, Policy Director of New America s Open Technology Institute On Proposed Amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Before The Judicial Conference Advisory
More informationCase 6:13-cr EFM Document 102 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cr-10176-EFM Document 102 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 13-10176-01-EFM WALTER ACKERMAN,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14 191 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHARLES L. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTONS, VS. RICHARD D. HURLES, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-012 Filing Date: February 6, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35469 IN THE MATTER OF EMILIO JACOB CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE An Attorney Licensed to
More informationOBJECTIVE MEMORANDUM. RE: FL/Business Planning/Trade Regulation/Rules and Regulations Applicable To Employer Phone-Monitoring Service
OBJECTIVE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Mark Brown, Esquire Florida Legal Research Andrea Stokes, Research Attorney RE: FL/Business Planning/Trade Regulation/Rules and Regulations Applicable To Employer Phone-Monitoring
More informationTITLE III WIRETAPS. WHO S LISTENING?
TITLE III WIRETAPS. WHO S LISTENING? Between the years 2002 and 2012, State and Federal Judges across the United States received 23,925 applications for wiretaps. All but 7 were granted. 1 In 2012, there
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Richard Montgomery appeals the district court s denial of his motion for a new
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT January 3, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff-Appellee, No.
More informationMatter of Rudolf STRYDOM, Respondent
Matter of Rudolf STRYDOM, Respondent Decided May 24, 2011 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A conviction under section 21-3843(a)(1) of the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,022. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,022 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. MITCHELL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 60-1507 provides the exclusive statutory remedy to
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. No In re Search Warrant for Records from AT&T
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT No. 2016-0187 In re Search Warrant for Records from AT&T State s Appeal Pursuant to RSA 606:10 from Judgment of the Second Circuit District Division - Plymouth
More informationv No This criminal prosecution under the Michigan eavesdropping statutes requires us to decide whether a
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 48909 Opinion C hief Justice Maura D. Corrigan Justices Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Clifford W. Taylor Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J.
More informationUSA v. Columna-Romero
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-30-2008 USA v. Columna-Romero Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4279 Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. v. CASE NO SAC
Orange v. Lyon County Detention Center Doc. 4 KYNDAL GRANT ORANGE, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. CASE NO. 18-3141-SAC LYON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
GEORGE HALL, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 15, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFF HUPP;
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ERIC WINDHURST ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT 05-S-1749 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. ERIC WINDHURST ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS LYNN, C.J. The defendant, Eric Windhurst, is charged with
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HJALMAR BJORKMAN. Argued: October 11, 2018 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 26, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 6, NO. S-1-SC-35469
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 6, 2017 4 NO. S-1-SC-35469 5 IN THE MATTER OF EMILIO JACOB CHAVEZ, ESQUIRE 6 An Attorney Licensed to Practice
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUELA VILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY; MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; WILLIAM GERARD MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee. vs. DAVID DON WASYLK Defendant-Appellant BRIEF OF APPELLANT
No. 14-112128-A MAY " 8 2015 HE ATI IF;^ I.. SMITH CLERK O f A PPF-IU T E COURTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DAVID DON WASYLK Defendant-Appellant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 114,271. CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 114,271 CHARLES NAUHEIM d/b/a KANSAS FIRE AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT, and HAL G. RICHARDSON d/b/a BUENO FOOD BRAND, TOPEKA VINYL TOP, and MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,
More informationFOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE, in its official capacity ) No. 01-15007 and as a representative of its Tribal members; ) Bishop Paiute Gaming Corporation,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,164 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JULIA DENG, Appellee, SCOTT HATTRUP, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,164 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JULIA DENG, Appellee, v. SCOTT HATTRUP, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court; DANIEL
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,849 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. EDWARD L. CLEMMONS, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,849 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS EDWARD L. CLEMMONS, Appellant, v. KANSAS SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,850 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES E. TACKETT, JR., Appellant, MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,850 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JAMES E. TACKETT, JR., Appellant, v. REX PRYOR (WARDEN) (KANSAS PRISONER REVIEW BOARD), Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 100,150. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRIAN A. GILBERT, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 100,150 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRIAN A. GILBERT, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction and may
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Crim. File No. 01-221 (PAM/ESS) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Dale Robert Bach, Defendant. This matter is before the Court
More informationORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining
DISTRICT COURT, EL PASO COUNTY, COLORADO 270 S. Tejon Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901 DATE FILED: March 19, 2018 11:58 PM CASE NUMBER: 2018CV30549 Plaintiffs: Saul Cisneros, Rut Noemi Chavez Rodriguez,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,853 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Appellee, ERIC M. MUATHE, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,853 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS FIFTH THIRD BANK, Appellee, v. ERIC M. MUATHE, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2016. Affirmed. Appeal from Crawford
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-11-0000604 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAYNE HENRY ALEKA GONSALVES, a.k.a. Dayne Aleka Nakaahiki Kane Kanokaoli; Poikauahi
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:10-cv-02106-JWL-DJW Document 36 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS YRC WORLDWIDE INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 10-2106-JWL ) DEUTSCHE
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRANDON M. DAWSON, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRANDON M. DAWSON, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Shawnee District
More information2:12-cr SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 United States of America, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Criminal Case No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. NICHOLE HALL, n/k/a LICHLYTER, Appellee, and. RONALD D. HALL, JR., Appellee.
No. 102,767 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF NICHOLE HALL, n/k/a LICHLYTER, Appellee, and RONALD D. HALL, JR., Appellee. ANDREA LEFFEW, maternal grandmother
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,265 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,265 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Marriage of DANNY BRIZENDINE, Appellant, and JENNIFER RANDALL, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
USA v. Christine Estrada Case: 15-10915 Document: 00513930959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2017Doc. 503930959 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,702. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,702 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF WALTER SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DC APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE
DC APPLESEED 1111 Fourteenth Street, NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202.289.8007 Fax 202.289.8009 www.dcappleseed.org SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF WALTER SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DC APPLESEED CENTER
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4609 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, versus Plaintiff - Appellee, DAMON BRIGHTMAN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-4612 UNITED STATES OF
More informationCase 2:13-cv RJS Document 105 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:13-cv-00217-RJS Document 105 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION DEREK KITCHEN, MOUDI SBEITY, KAREN ARCHER, KATE CALL, LAURIE
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff - Appellee, No (D.C. No. 5:14-CR M-1) v. W.D. Oklahoma STEPHEN D. HUCKEBA, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 25, 2015 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, No.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 21, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JULY 14, 2006; 2:00 P.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-002052-MR MARY KEARNEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHARLES HICKMAN,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 1003 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FRANK CAIRA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationIn re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent
In re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent File A96 035 732 - Houston Decided February 9, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Section 201(f)(1)
More informationCase: , 01/02/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55470, 01/02/2018, ID: 10708808, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 02 2018 (1 of 14) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
1 1 1 MICHAEL D. KIMERER, #00 AMY L. NGUYEN, #0 Kimerer & Derrick, P.C. East Indianola Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 01 Telephone: 0/-00 Facsimile: 0/- Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
More informationCell Site Simulator Privacy Model Bill
Cell Site Simulator Privacy Model Bill SECTION 1. Definitions. As used in this Act: (A) Authorized possessor shall mean the person in possession of a communications device when that person is the owner
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 119,293 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JOSIAH BUNYARD, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 119,293 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOSIAH BUNYARD, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS and LARNED STATE HOSPITAL, Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-658 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHARMAINE HAMER, PETITIONER, v. NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES OF CHICAGO & FANNIE MAE, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
More informationCase 3:16-cr BR Document 915 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 915 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:16-cr-00051-BR v. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, TYSON SPEARS, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,233 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF HUTCHINSON, Appellee, v. TYSON SPEARS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; TRISH
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 118, , ,675 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 118,673 118,674 118,675 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KEVIN COIL COLEMAN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Saline
More informationCase 3:07-cr NBB-SAA Document 112 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB-SAA Document 112 Filed 02/19/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI VS. CRIMINAL NO. 3:07CR192 RICHARD
More information20. ENFORCEMENT OF ICWA REQUIREMENTS
20. ENFORCEMENT OF ICWA REQUIREMENTS Disclaimer: A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act is intended to facilitate compliance with the letter and spirit of ICWA and is intended for educational
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,786. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DJUAN R. RICHARDSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,786 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DJUAN R. RICHARDSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Non-sex offenders seeking to avoid retroactive application of
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA12 Court of Appeals No. 13CA2337 Jefferson County District Court No. 02CR1048 Honorable Margie Enquist, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationNo. 104,429 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ERIC L. BELL, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,429 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ERIC L. BELL, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The district court should use two steps in analyzing a defendant's
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS MomsWIN, LLC and ) ARIANA REED-HAGAR, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) No. 02-2195-KHV JOEY LUTES, VIRTUAL WOW, INC., ) and TODD GORDANIER,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, No. 07-5151 v. N.D.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case: 3:00-cr-00050-WHR-MRM Doc #: 81 Filed: 06/16/17 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 472 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually and as personal representative of
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA116 Court of Appeals No. 14CA2476 Adams County District Court No. 12CR3553 Honorable Mark D. Warner, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristopher
More information***THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE*** ***EXECUTIONS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 20, 24, and 27, 2017*** No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
***THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE*** ***EXECUTIONS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 20, 24, and 27, 2017*** No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JASON McGEHEE, STACEY JOHNSON, BRUCE WARD, TERRICK NOONER, JACK JONES,
More informationNo. 104,144 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DEAN A. GREBE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,144 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DEAN A. GREBE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. How to construe and apply a statute governing the imposition
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 16, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEREINO
More informationDecember 31, 2014 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 31, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THOMAS H. PORTER; RICKEY RAY REDFORD; ROBERT DEMASS;
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANA SABATINO, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DIANA SABATINO, Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal
More informationALISON PERRONE Attorney at Law P.O. Box 288 Columbus, N.J (phone) (fax)
ALISON PERRONE Attorney at Law P.O. Box 288 Columbus, N.J. 08022 609-298-0615 (phone) 609-298-8745 (fax) aliperr@comcast.net (email) JOSEPH E. KRAKORA Public Defender Office of the Public Defender 31 Clinton
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CITY OF LAWRENCE, Appellee, COLIN ROYAL COMEAU, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,025 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CITY OF LAWRENCE, Appellee, v. COLIN ROYAL COMEAU, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Douglas
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,818 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. RICHARD GRISSOM, Appellant, JAMES HEIMGARTNER, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,818 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS RICHARD GRISSOM, Appellant, v. JAMES HEIMGARTNER, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Butler District
More informationORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Fox, JJ., concur
12CA0378 Peo v. Rivas-Landa 07-11-2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 12CA0378 Adams County District Court No. 10CR558 Honorable Chris Melonakis, Judge The People of the State of Colorado,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,788 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TIMOTHY CAMERON, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,788 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TIMOTHY CAMERON, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDER
Case 5:17-cv-00887-HE Document 33 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) NO. CIV-17-887-HE
More informationCase: 1:13-cr Document #: 24 Filed: 04/14/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:108
Case: 1:13-cr-00720 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/14/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:108 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ) JEFF D., et al., ) ) Case No. CV-80-4091-S-BLW Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) AMENDED MEMORANDUM ) DECISION AND ORDER DIRK KEMPTHORNE, et al., ) )
More informationNo United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 09-35860 10/14/2010 Page: 1 of 16 ID: 7508761 DktEntry: 41-1 No. 09-35860 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kenneth Kirk, Carl Ekstrom, and Michael Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
TERRY A. STOUT, an individual, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
EDWIN ASEBEDO, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. KANSAS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationIn The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia
In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia BRET D. LANDRITH, SAMUEL K. LIPARI Case No. 12-cv-01916-ABJ Plaintiffs vs. Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States
More informationNo. 101,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. CHRISTOPHER G. CUTHBERTSON, Appellant, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 101,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS CHRISTOPHER G. CUTHBERTSON, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Driving a motor vehicle in the State
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,460 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES BADZIN, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,460 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JAMES BADZIN, Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson
More informationSeptember 18, 1987 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO
ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL September 18, 1987 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 87-138 The Honorable Ed C. Redmon State Fire Marshall Landon State Office Bldg. Suite 901 900 S.W. Jackson Topeka, KS
More informationCase5:11-cv EJD Document163 Filed08/31/15 Page1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-0-EJD Document Filed0// Page of 0 DOE I, DOE II, Ivy HE, DOE III, DOE IV, DOE V, DOE VI, ROE VII, Charles LEE, ROE VIII, DOE IX, LIU Guifu, WANG Weiyu, and those individual similarly situated,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-1385 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, NING WEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for
More information