UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
|
|
- Gary Cain
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGN SOUTHERN DIVISION RTURO HERRER-FLORES, a/k/a rturo Flores-Morales, Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:05-CV-111 (Criminal Case No. 1:03:CR:200) UNITED STTES OF MERIC, HON. GORDON J. UIST Respondent. / OPINION This Court has before it rturo Herrera-Flores ( Petitioner ) Motion Under 28 U.S.C To Vacate, Set side, Or Correct Sentence By Person In Federal Custody. Promptly after the filing of a 2255 motion, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the Motion to determine whether it plainly appears from the face of the motion and the annexed exhibits that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. Rule 4, Rules Governing 2255 Cases. If so, the Court shall make an order for its summary dismissal. Id. dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. See Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, (6th Cir. 1999) (applying Rule 4 to petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254). fter undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief. I. Facts and Procedural History rturo Herrera-Flores operates under several names. He was indicted under one of his false names, rturo Flores-Morales. On October 8, 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to being present in the
2 United States after deportation subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2). He was represented by an ssistant Federal Public Defender at all times. On December 18, 2003, Judgment was entered sentencing Petitioner to, among other things, 72 months incarceration. Petitioner had 10 days after that date (until January 6, 2003) in which to file an appeal with the Court of ppeals for the Sixth Circuit. Fed. R. pp. P. 4(b), 26(a)(2). Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or his sentence. On February 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Set side or Correct his Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C II. Petition is Untimely First, this matter is barred by the one year statute of limitations. Under 2255, Petitioner must have filed his petition within one year after the date on which his judgment of conviction became final. 28 U.S.C The Sixth Circuit has held that when a 2255 movant does not pursue a direct appeal to the court of appeals, his conviction becomes final on the date on which the time for filing such appeal expired. See Sanchez-Castellano v. United States, 358 F.3d 424, 427 (6th Cir. 2004). Thus, Petitioner had until January 6, 2004, in which to file his petition. Because he did not file his petition until February 14, 2005, the petition was untimely. III. Petitioner Knowingly Entered his Plea of Guilty Second, Petitioner s claim fails on the merits. He claims that he really was not rturo Flores- Morales, but was rturo Herrera-Flores, and that he told his counsel so. He claims that he did not know the difference between illegal reentry and illegal entry. He admits that he is guilty of illegal entry, but he denies that he is guilty of illegal reentry. He claims that he had a permanent resident card. He also claims that he had entered the United States illegally only once, so he cannot be guilty of illegal reentry. He says that he and his counsel were confused. Finally, he claims that this Court illegally enhanced his sentence in violation of the Blakely-Booker line of cases. 2
3 Petitioner continues to think that he can confuse the Court by using whatever name suits him at a particular time and then outright lie about whether he knew what he was pleading to. The very caption of Petitioner s Presentence Investigation Report and Judgment is entitled: rturo Flores- Morales True Name: rturo Herrera-Flores. Throughout the PSR, Petitioner is referred to by what he acknowledges to be his true name: rturo Herrera-Flores. So no one was fooled in that regard. lso, Petitioner was clearly told the elements of the offense with which he was charged and understood all of the elements of the offense when he pled guilty. nd he admitted the elements: THE COURT: MS. WOODS: THE COURT: MS. WOODS: Would you read the charge to us, please. Yes, Your Honor. The grand jury charges: On or about ugust 6, 2003, in Cass County, in the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, rturo Flores-Morales, also known as rturo Herrera-Flores, also know as Guadalupe Cuellar, Jr., and also known as Guadalupe Guellar, Jr. You don t have to read all that. Thank you. Being an alien who had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony offense and who was thereafter deported on or about October 27th, 1998, was found to be knowingly and voluntarily in the United States without having obtained the express prior consent of the ttorney General to return or to reapply for admission. Thank you. 3
4 THE COURT: In order for you to be found guilty of this offense, the government must prove each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that you were not a citizen of the United States. Second, that you were lawfully deported or excluded and deported from the United States; and Third, you reentered the United States without the consent of the ttorney General or an agency with the Department of Justice or you can prove that you did not have to have that consent. In addition, in this case, the government charged that you had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony. felony is a crime that carries a maximum penalty of more than one year in prison. n aggravated felony would include drug dealing. (Plea Tr. at 5-6.) What makes you think you are guilty of this offense, Mr. Flores. First of all, let me ask you some questions. re you an merican citizen, sir? No, Your Honor. I used to have papers, but after my drug conviction, I lost them, and I came back. ll right. But are you a citizen? In other words, have you ever applied for citizenship and been granted citizenship? I m not talking about a green card or proper documents. No. Were you convicted of drug-trafficking in a federal court in Texas prior to having been deported? I did not understand that one. Okay. You said that you were previously convicted for possession with intent to distribute drugs. Is that correct? Yes. nd that was in federal court in Texas somewhere? 4
5 Yes, sir. nd you served about almost 5 years on that offense. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. nd after that time being served in federal prison, were you then deported from the United States? Yes, sir. nd did you return to the United States without permission from the ttorney General? Yes, sir. (Id. at ) This Court found at the time of the plea that the plea was knowingly and freely given. (Id. at 18.) Petitioner has produced nothing to indicate anything different. IV. Blakely and Booker are not Retroactive on Collateral Review Third, Petitioner s reliance upon the Blakely-Booker line of cases gets him nowhere. In Blakely v. Washington, U.S., 124 S. Ct (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that a Washington state trial judge s enhancement of a defendant s sentence based on the judge s finding of deliberate cruelty violated the defendant s Sixth mendment right to a trial by jury. The decision called into question the constitutionality of both Washington state s sentencing guidelines and the federal sentencing guidelines. On January 12, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided another case, United States v. Booker, U.S., 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), that addressed whether the federal sentencing guidelines and enhancement provisions violate a defendant s Sixth mendment rights. In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth mendment is violated by the mandatory imposition of an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the sentencing judge s determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. However, the Court also concluded that the application of the guidelines does not violate a defendant s constitutional rights so long as the guidelines are 5
6 advisory, rather than mandatory, in nature. Here, Petitioner objects to the enhancement of his sentence. However, for the reasons discussed below, neither Blakely nor Booker is applicable to Petitioner. New procedural rules, such as those set forth in Blakely and Booker, do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, , 109 S.Ct (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, unless: 1) the new rule places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe; or 2) the new rule establishes a watershed rule of criminal procedure that implicate[s] the fundamental fairness of the trial, without which the likelihood of accurate conviction is seriously diminished. Neither of these exceptions is met here. Furthermore, for a new rule to be retroactive to cases on collateral review, the Supreme Court itself must make the rule retroactive. See Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, , 121 S.Ct. 2478, 2482 (2001); In re Clemmons, 259 F.3d 489, (6th Cir. 2001). s the Court explained in Tyler, the Supreme Court is the only entity that can ma[k]e a new rule retroactive. The new rule becomes retroactive, not by the decisions of the lower court or by the combined action of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, but simply by the action of the Supreme Court. Tyler, 533 U.S. at 663, 121 S.Ct. at Thus, it is not enough that this Court may retroactively apply a new rule of constitutional law or hold that a new rule of constitutional law satisfies the criteria for retroactive application set forth by the Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane. Rather, when the Supreme Court makes a rule retroactive for collateral-review purposes, it does so unequivocally, in the form of a holding. See Tyler, 533 U.S. at 663, 121 S.Ct. at 2482; In re Clemmons, 259 F.3d at
7 Here, the Supreme Court has not expressly declared Booker or Blakely to be retroactive to cases on collateral review. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 769 (opinion of Breyer, J.) (expressly extending the holding to all cases on direct review ). Booker itself was decided in the context of a direct appeal, and the Supreme Court has not since applied it to a case on collateral review. Furthermore, the Court of ppeals for the Sixth Circuit previously has suggested that the Supreme Court has not made Blakely retroactive to cases on collateral review for purposes of the rules governing the filing of successive petitions. See Spiridigliozzi v. United States, No , 2004 WL (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2004) ( it is unlikely Blakely would apply retroactively to matters addressed via 28 U.S.C ); see also Regalado, 334 F.3d at 527 (holding that pprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct (2000) does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review); In re Clemmons, 259 F.3d at 492 ( [w]hile this court has applied pprendi to cases on direct appeal, we have not applied its new rule retroactively to cases on collateral review ). Other courts that have recently addressed this issue have held that Blakely and Booker cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review. See McReynolds v. United States, F.3d, 2005 WL (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2005) (Booker does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review); Green v. United States, F.3d, 2005 WL (2nd Cir. Feb. 2, 2005) (holding that neither Booker nor Blakely applied retroactively to petitioner s collateral challenge under section 2255); In re nderson, F.3d, 2005 WL , *3-4 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2005)(denying petitioner s second or successive petition because petitioner could not show that the Supreme Court made Booker retroactive to cases already final on direct review); In re Dean, 375 F.3d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004)(holding that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review); Gerrish v. United States, F. Supp. 2d, 2005 WL (D.Me. Jan. 7
8 25, 2005) (holding that neither Booker nor Blakely apply retroactively to cases on collateral review). Further, the Supreme Court itself has strongly implied that Blakely and Booker should not be applied retroactively. The same day the Supreme Court decided Blakely, the Court also issued its decision in Schriro v. Summerlin, U.S., 124 S.Ct (2004), holding that Ring v. rizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct (2002), which extended application of pprendi to facts increasing a defendant s sentence from life imprisonment to death, is not retroactive to cases on collateral review. Summerlin, 124 S.Ct. at Because Blakely and Booker, like Ring, are based on an extension of pprendi, Petitioner cannot show that the Supreme Court has made those decisions retroactive to cases on collateral review. ccordingly, Petitioner's claim fails to satisfy the statutory criteria of 28 U.S.C Finally, pprendi, Blakely and Booker do not apply to Petitioner s conviction for drug trafficking, the aggravated felony which enhanced his Offense Level 16 points under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See lmendarez-torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S. Ct (1998); United States v. Copado-Jaramillo, No , 110 Fed. ppx. 518, 522, 2004 WL , (6th Cir. ug. 31, 2004) ( In the instant case, the sentencing factor that increased Defendant s sentence was a prior conviction... Therefore, this case is excepted from pprendi s and, ergo, Blakely s dictate that a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt every fact that increases a defendant s sentence beyond the statutory maximum. ) V. Certificate of ppealability Under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of appealability should be granted. certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). This Court s dismissal of Petitioner s 8
9 action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2255 Cases is a determination that the 2255 motion, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly unlikely for this Court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of ppeals that an issue merits review, when the court has already determined that the action is so lacking in merit that service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10, 15 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is somewhat anomalous for the court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under Rule 4 but granted certificate); Dory v. Comm r of Corr. of the State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir. 1989) (it was intrinsically contradictory to grant a certificate when habeas action does not warrant service under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing certificate would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal). The Sixth Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined each of Petitioner s claims under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not find that this Court s dismissal of each of Petitioner s claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 9
10 Conclusion For these reasons, Petitioner's 2255 Motion (docket #1) is DENIED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2255 Cases. In addition, a certificate of appealability is DENIED as to each issue raised by Petitioner because he has failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Dated: March 1, 2005 /s/ Gordon J. uist GORDON J. UIST UNITED STTES DISTRICT JUDGE 10
Case 1:05-cv GJQ Document 3 Filed 11/18/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00730-GJQ Document 3 Filed 11/18/2005 Page 1 of 6 YUSEF LATEEF PHILLIPS, Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Case No. 1:05-CV-730
More informationHarvey Reinhold v. Gerald Rozum
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-14-2010 Harvey Reinhold v. Gerald Rozum Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential Docket No. 08-3371 Follow this
More information2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14984, * DARBERTO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 04-CV-0465 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) CR. NO.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. CR. NO. 89-1234, Defendant. MOTION TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION Defendant, through undersigned counsel,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 1:18-cv-962 v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney RANDEE REWERTS, OPINION
Taylor v. Rewerts Doc. 6 CEDRICK LEDALE TAYLOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Petitioner, Case No. 1:18-cv-962 v. Honorable Paul L. Maloney RANDEE REWERTS,
More informationUSA v. Mario Villaman-Puerta
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-16-2011 USA v. Mario Villaman-Puerta Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2061 Follow this
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0146p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- v.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-70030 Document: 00511160264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 30, 2010 Lyle
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV : MEMORANDUM
Bouyea v. Baltazar Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAYNE BOUYEA, : : Petitioner : : v. : CIVIL NO. 3:CV-14-2388 : JUAN BALTAZAR, : (Judge Kosik) : Respondent
More informationF I L E D September 16, 2011
Case: 11-50447 Document: 0051160478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 16, 011 In
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEMARCUS O. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 15-CV-1070-MJR vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) REAGAN, Chief
More informationn a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION r o j e c t of the National Lawyers Guild
n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the National Lawyers Guild 14 Beacon Street Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 Phone 617 227 9727 Fax 617 227 5495 PRACTICE ADVISORY: A Defending Immigrants Partnership
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Case :-cr-000-sab Document Filed 0/0/ 0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BRANNON SUTTLE III, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NO. :-cr-000-sab ORDER
More information1 Karl Eric Gratzer, who was convicted of deliberate homicide in 1982 and who is
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 05-075 2006 MT 282 KARL ERIC GRATZER, ) ) Petitioner, ) O P I N I O N v. ) and ) O R D E R MIKE MAHONEY, ) ) Respondent. ) 1 Karl Eric Gratzer, who was
More informationNo. 110,421 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ROBERT L. VERGE, Appellant, STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 110,421 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ROBERT L. VERGE, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Although Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S., 133 S. Ct. 2151,
More informationUSA v. Sosa-Rodriguez
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-5-2002 USA v. Sosa-Rodriguez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 1-1218 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
More informationOn January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court announced its
LITIGATING IN A POST-BOOKER WORLD By Alan Ellis, Karen L. Landau, and James H. Feldman, Jr. On January 12, 2005, the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated opinion in United States v. Booker, 543
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 informationfor the boutbern Aisuttt Of deorata
Ware v. Flournoy Doc. 19 the Eniteb State itrid Court for the boutbern Aisuttt Of deorata 38runabick fltbiion KEITH WARE, * * Petitioner, * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-cv-84 * V. * * J.V. FLOURNOY, * * Respondent.
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 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 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CHARLES ANTHONY DAVIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CV 119-015 ) (Formerly CR 110-041) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
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 informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 06-7517 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICHARD IRIZARRY, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationCase 9:02-cr DWM Document 55 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:02-cr-00045-DWM Document 55 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED AUG 0 3 2016 Clerk, U S District Court District Of
More informationCase: 1:03-cr Document #: 205 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:535
Case: 1:03-cr-00636 Document #: 205 Filed: 10/06/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:535 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) No. 03 CR 636-6 Plaintiff/Respondent,
More informationUSA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2394 Follow this and
More informationCase 8:01-cr DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:01-cr-00566-DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOSEPHINE VIRGINIA GRAY : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-0532 Criminal Case
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-6-2012 USA v. James Murphy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2896 Follow this and additional
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:12-cr-00087-JMM Document 62 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : No. 3:12cr87 : No. 3:16cv313 v. : :
More informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CR. NO. xxx Defendant, Defendant. MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 29, 2006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINL PPELS OF TENNESSEE T NSHVILLE ssigned on Briefs November 29, 2006 STTE OF TENNESSEE v. RUSSELL HOUSE Direct ppeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. CR-599-2004 C.L.
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA : : : : : : : : : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA ULISES MENDOZA, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Petitioner, Respondent. Case No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COMES NOW, Petitioner, by and through undersigned
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. xxxxx SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CASE NO. xxxxx RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant. / SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The defendant, Rafael
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 15a0029p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ASO POLA, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner-Appellant,
More informationIn the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 93. September Term, 2006
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT050498X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 93 September Term, 2006 FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLORZANO a/k/a FAUSTO EDIBURTO SOLARZANO v. STATE OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION RICHARD HAMBLEN ) ) v. ) No. 3:08-1034 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Pending before
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT.,Esq.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR. NO. ) ) PLEA AGREEMENT DEFENSE COUNSEL: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY:,Esq.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before GORSUCH, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v.
More informationWright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned),
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1078 September Term, 2014 JUAN CARLOS SANMARTIN PRADO v. STATE OF MARYLAND Wright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
More informationIn re Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-ZAPATA, Respondent
In re Miguel Angel MARTINEZ-ZAPATA, Respondent File A94 791 455 - Los Fresnos Decided December 19, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1)
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005 DARRELL MCQUIDDY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 97-D-2569 J. Randall
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Velazquez, 2011-Ohio-4818.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95978 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. NELSON VELAZQUEZ
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-4-2006 USA v. Rivera Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-5329 Follow this and additional
More informationCommittee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143
Committee for Public Counsel Services Public Defender Division Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 WENDY S. WAYNE TEL: (617) 623-0591 DIRECTOR FAX: (617) 623-0936 JEANETTE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 7, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT NORMAN E. WIEGAND, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 08-1353 v.
More informationTHIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY EMPLOYEES OF A FEDERAL DEFENDER OFFICE AS PART OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.
Would an Enhancement for Accidental Death or Serious Bodily Injury Resulting from the Use of a Drug No Longer Apply Under the Supreme Court s Decision in Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014),
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Shelton v. USA Doc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA MICHAEL J. SHELTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. No.: 1:18-CV-287-CLC MEMORANDUM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:16cv302-FDW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:16cv302-FDW DAVID KENNETH FOWLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) FRANK L. PERRY, ) ) Respondent. ) ) THIS MATTER
More informationCase 3:12-cr SI Document 48 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case 3:12-cr-00604-SI Document 48 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Case No. 3:12-cr-00604-SI OPINION AND
More informationTimmy Mills v. Francisco Quintana
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-10-2010 Timmy Mills v. Francisco Quintana Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-3004 Follow
More informationAll about Booker. By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1.
All about Booker By Alan Ellis and James H. Feldman, Jr. 1 www.alanellis.com On January 12, 2005, e Supreme Court announced its muchanticipated opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. --, 125 S.Ct.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Number: v. : VIOLATION: Count One: JAMES STEVEN GRILES, : 18 U.S.C. 1505 (Obstruction of Proceedings Defendant.
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : : : : : : :
Case 105-cr-00254-RLV -AJB Document 291 Filed 06/14/11 Page 1 of 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION IVAN DEJESUS CHAPA, Movant, v. UNITED STATES
More informationNo. IN THE. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ-LOPEZ, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Petitioner Respondent On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationREASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1
REASONS FOR SEEKING CLEMENCY 1 In 1998, a Waverly, Virginia police officer, Allen Gibson, was murdered during a drug deal gone wrong. After some urging by his defense attorney and the State s threats to
More informationUSA v. Kheirallah Ahmad
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-28-2009 USA v. Kheirallah Ahmad Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1374 Follow this and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr EAK-TGW-4. versus
Case: 12-10899 Date Filed: 04/23/2013 Page: 1 of 25 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-10899 D.C. Docket No. 8:06-cr-00464-EAK-TGW-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 29559 GEORGE JUNIOR PORTER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent-Appellant. Lewiston, October 2004 Term 2004 Opinion No. 115 Filed:
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO DECEMBER TERM, 2012
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2012-111 DECEMBER TERM, 2012 State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM: }
More informationCase 3:16-cv ADC Document 6 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case 3:16-cv-02368-ADC Document 6 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO FERNANDO BAELLA-PABÓN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No. 16-2368
More informationcase 3:04-cr AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6
case 3:04-cr-00071-AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Cause No. 3:04-CR-71(AS)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-00106-01-CR-W-DW TIMOTHY RUNNELS, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Apr 22 2014 15:58:43 2013-CP-00239-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SHELBY RAY PARHAM APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CP-0239-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-1677 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JADEN DUKE, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ames Circuit JOINT
More informationCircuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED. Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1994 September Term, 2017 ANTHONY M. CHARLES v. STATE OF MARYLAND Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2010 CALVIN WILHITE v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 09-586-IV Russell
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Mar 13 2017 09:59:29 2015-CP-01388-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DANA EASTERLING APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-01388-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. Eastern Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Eastern Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. Case No. 2:04-cr-88 NURADIN M. ABDI JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Defendant. PLEA
More informationWalker v. USA Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Walker v. USA - 2255 Doc. 2 TROY WALKER, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND pro se Petitioner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent Civil No. PJM 14-2366 Crim. No. PJM 12-0614
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
Hill v. Dixon Correctional Institute Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION DWAYNE J. HILL, aka DEWAYNE HILL CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1819 LA. DOC #294586 VS. SECTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiffs CRIMINAL DOCKET CR-09-351 BRIAN DUNN V. HON. RICHARD P. CONABOY Defendant SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
More information~3n ~e ~reme ~ourt of ~e ~Inite~ ~tate~
No. 06-1646 ~3n ~e ~reme ~ourt of ~e ~Inite~ ~tate~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER V. GINO GONZAGA RODRIQUEZ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee; ) ) Crim. No. 02-484-02 (TFH) v. ) (Appeal No. 03-3126) ) Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx ) ) Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff Appellee, v. DWAYNE
More informationCase 1:09-mj JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 1:09-mj-00015-JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) V. ) ) DWAYNE F. CROSS, ) ) Defendant. ) Case
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Sentence Vacated; Case Remanded for Resentencing.
[Cite as State v. McLaughlin, 2006-Ohio-7084.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KENYON MCLAUGHLIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CASE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION ORDER
BRYANT v. TAYLOR Doc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION CARNEL BRYANT, Petitioner, v. Case No. CV416-077 CEDRIC TAYLOR, Respondent. ORDER Carnel Bryant petitions
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, 2006 No. 04-3431 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 6, 2011
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 6, 2011 TRACY LYNN HARRIS V. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll County No. 20CR1470
More informationFlLED RECEIVED. Case 2:09-cr ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 ~LODGED COPY NOV Ct.ERK US DISTRICT COURT DISTR CT OF A.
Case 2:09-cr-00717-ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 1 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona 2 Howard D. Sukenic 3 Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 011990 Two
More informationCase 1:18-cr LM Document 2 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTWCT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 1:18-cr-00114-LM Document 2 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES DISTWCT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ig F«ssw ^23 P b! 09 MiOEPOSITORY DARREN B. STRATTON PLEA
More informationPOST-PADILLA ISSUES. Two-Part Test: Strickland
POST-PADILLA ISSUES Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant whether a citizen or not is left to the mercies of incompetent
More informationJames Kimball v. Delbert Sauers
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-24-2013 James Kimball v. Delbert Sauers Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-1296 Follow
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT VS. : APPEAL NUMBER
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Appellant, VS. : APPEAL NUMBER 05-4833 MARC RICKS : Appellee. Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Under
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No JEWEL SPOTVILLE, VERSUS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-30661 JEWEL SPOTVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, VERSUS BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, LA; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ANGEL MELENDEZ-ORSINI, a/k/a Gelo, a/k/a Cerebro, a/k/a Primo, Defendant, Appellant. No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ANGEL MELENDEZ-ORSINI, a/k/a Gelo, a/k/a Cerebro, a/k/a Primo, Defendant, Appellant. No. 15-2535 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit September 27,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-1013 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Sep 3 2013 15:56:02 2013-CP-01013-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TIMOTHY LEE CARR APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CP-1013 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-10-02 v. EDWARD D. STROUB, O P I N I O N
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-27-2009 USA v. Marshall Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4778 Follow this and additional
More informationNO F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/appellee,
NO. 04-10461-F IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/appellee, v. OSCAR PINARGOTE, Defendant/appellant. On Appeal from the United States District
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-4-2008 USA v. Nesbitt Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2884 Follow this and additional
More informationCASE 0:14-cr ADM-FLN Document 118 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:14-cr-00311-ADM-FLN Document 118 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 7 United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. AND ORDER Criminal No. 14-311
More information1. The defendant understands her rights as follows:
Case 1:16-cr-00024-CG Document 2 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NATALIE REED PERHACS
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-6-2005 USA v. Abdus-Shakur Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2248 Follow this and additional
More information