UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
|
|
- Tamsin Hart
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THOMAS P. O BRIEN United States Attorney CHRISTINE C. EWELL Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTOPHER BRUNWIN Assistant United States Attorney Deputy Chief, Violent & Organized Crime Section STEVEN R. WELK California State Bar No. 1 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Asset Forfeiture Section FRANK D. KORTUM California State Bar No. 110 Assistant United States Attorney Asset Forfeiture Section 100 United States Courouse 1 Nor Spring Street Los Angeles, California 001 Telephone: (1) -1/10 Facsimile: (1) -1 Steven.Welk@usdoj.gov Frank.Kortum@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RUBEN CAVAZOS, ) aka Doc, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) CR FMC GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE AS TO REGISTERED TRADEMARKS, PURSUANT TO GUILTY PLEA OF RUBEN CAVAZOS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STEVEN R. WELK AND EXHIBITS No Hearing Required
2 Plaintiff United States of America hereby applies for e entry of e proposed Preliminary Order of Forfeiture of Registered Trademarks lodged contemporaneously herewi pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P..(b) and defendant Ruben Cavazos s entry of a plea of guilty to Count One of e Indictment. This application, which deals solely wi e registered trademarks as to which forfeiture is sought (described in detail below) is supported by defendant's guilty plea, e factual basis stated during defendant s plea proceeding, and e matters set for in e accompanying Memorandum of Points and Auorities and Declaration of Steven R. Welk and Exhibits. 1 Government counsel contacted Angel Navarro, counsel for defendant RUBEN CABAZOS, to inform him of is filing, on June, 00. Undersigned counsel ed a final draft of e accompanying Memorandum of Points and Auorities and e proposed Preliminary Order of Forfeiture of Registered Trademarks to Mr. Navarro on June, 00, requesting at he respond promptly wi comments or objections to e draft. Mr. Navarro 1 The government anticipates at it will seek a separate Preliminary Order of Forfeiture prior to defendant s sentencing for oer assets seized from defendant.
3
4 I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On January, 00, defendant Ruben Cavazos ( defendant ) entered a plea of guilty to Count One of e Indictment, alleging violations of 1 U.S.C. 1(d). Defendant is scheduled to be sentenced on February, 010. In Count Eighty-Five of e Indictment, e government notified defendant at e government would seek e forfeiture of certain property upon his conviction of one or bo of Counts One and/or Two. As part of his guilty plea, defendant agreed to e forfeiture of all right, title and interest in certain assets acquired or maintained by him as a result of his violation of 1 U.S.C. 1, including ose listed immediately below (e Mongols Registered Trademarks or marks ), and admitted at e marks were subject to forfeiture to e United States: 1. The trademark assigned Registration No. 01 (serial no. 101), issued to Mongol Nation on or about April, 00, purportedly for use in commerce in connection wi promoting e interests of persons interested in e recreation of riding motorcycles.. The trademark assigned Registration No. 1 (serial no. 1), issued to Mongol Nation on or about January 11, 00, purportedly for use in commerce in connection wi promoting e interests of persons interested in e recreation of riding motorcycles. Pursuant to Rule.(b), e government now applies for e entry of e proposed Preliminary Order of Forfeiture of Registered Trademarks (lodged contemporaneously herewi). The government also requests at e forfeiture of e specific property be stated orally at defendant s sentencing and set for in defendant s Judgment and Commitment Order. 1
5 II. ARGUMENT A. The Nexus Between Defendant's Crimes and e Specific Property to be Forfeited Has Been Established by Defendant s Guilty Plea Rule. of e Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in pertinent part: As soon as practicable after entering a guilty verdict or accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on any count in an indictment or information wi regard to which criminal forfeiture is sought, e court must determine wheer e government has established e requisite nexus between e property and e offense. Fed. R. Crim. P..(b)(1). The Advisory Committee Notes for is provision explain at for e preliminary order of forfeiture, e court must determine "if e property was subject to forfeiture under e applicable statute, e.g., wheer e property represented e proceeds of e offense...." Advisory Committee Notes to Rule., subdivision (a) (000 Adoption). The standard of proof regarding e forfeitability of property in a criminal case, including RICO cases, is preponderance of e evidence. See United States v. Najjar, 00 F.d, - ( Cir. 00) (RICO); United States v. Shryock, F.d, 1 ( Cir. 00) (following Najjar); United States v. DeFries, 1 F.d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 1) (RICO); United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, F.d 10, 1- ( Cir. 1) (interpreting identical language in 1 U.S.C. ); United States v. Bieri, 1 F.d 1 ( Cir. 1) ( ). Thus, e only question before e Court in connection wi e requested entry of e proposed Preliminary Order is wheer e evidence before e Court is enough to establish by a
6 preponderance of e evidence at ere is a nexus between e Mongols Registered Trademarks and e offense(s) at are alleged to render em forfeitable. See Rule.(b)(1), quoted above. The existence or extent of ird-party interests in e marks are determined after e entry of e preliminary order. See United States v. Lazarenko, F.d, ( Cir. 00) ( Upon a finding at e property involved is subject to forfeiture, a court must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture wiout regard to a ird party s interests in e property. ). The preliminary order should be entered promptly in order to avoid unnecessary delay in e forfeiture process and resolve potential ird party rights. United States v. Yeje- st Cabrera, 0 F.d 1, 1 (1 Cir. 00). The defendant need not be present when e preliminary order is entered. United States v. Segal, F.d, - ( Cir. 00). Forfeiture in a RICO case is mandatory where property is determined to be wiin e scope of 1(a). Alexander v. United States, 0 U.S., (1) ( a RICO conviction subjects e violator not only to traditional, ought stringent, criminal fines and prison terms, but also mandatory forfeiture under 1"); United States v. Nava, 0 F.d 111, 11 ( Cir. 00). The scope of at forfeiture auority is extraordinarily broad. See 1 U.S.C. 1(b) ( Property subject to criminal forfeiture under is section includes -... tangible and intangible personal property, incuding rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities ); Russello v. United States, U.S. 1, (1) (Congress enacted RICO to provide new weapons of unprecedented scope for an assault upon
7 organized crime and its economic roots ); United States v. Busher, 1 F.d 10, 11 ( Cir. 1) (e forfeiture provisions of 1 are purposely broad...[,] designed to totally separate a racketeer from e enterprise he operates ); st United States v. Angiulo, F.d 11, 111 (1 Cir. 10) ( any interests in an enterprise, including e enterprise itself, are subject to forfeiture in eir entirety, regardless of wheer some portion of e enterprise is not tainted by e racketeering activity ); United States v. Segal, F.d, ( Cir. 00) (if a business is forfeited, so are all of its assets, including any subsidiary business at is wholly owned by e forfeited business; ere need not be an independent basis for e forfeiture of e wholly-owned subsidiary). The government is not required to establish e defendant s ownership of e property eier to seize it or to obtain a preliminary order of forfeiture, and ird parties are prohibited from intervening in e criminal case, and cannot complain at ey have to wait for e ancillary proceeding to assert eir rights. Almeida v. United States, F.d, 1 (d Cir. 00); 1 U.S.C. 1(i). As explained in e Advisory Committee Notes to Rule. (000), e Rule was revised wi e intent to eliminate confusion over wheer e extent of e defendant s ownership interest should be determined by e finder of fact. The new rule clarified at e only question upon conviction or a guilty plea is wheer ere is a nexus between e violation of which e defendant has been convicted (or to which he has pled) and e property sought - if ere is, e court should enter an order forfeiting whatever interest a
8 defendant may have in e property wiout having to determine exactly what at interest is. A defendant cannot object to e entry of a preliminary order on e ground at e property at issue does not belong to him. United States v. Schlesinger, F.Supp.d, (E.D.N.Y. 00). Here, defendant (and numerous oers) have pled guilty to Count One of e Indictment. Defendant has admitted as part of his plea (and e undisputed evidence conclusively confirms) at e Mongols Registered Trademarks were acquired and maintained by defendant during and in e course of e operation of e RICO enterprise described in e Indictment, rendering em subject to forfeiture pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 1(a)(1). His admissions also establish at e Mongols Registered Trademarks afforded a source of influence over e RICO enterprise at defendant admits he established, operated, controlled, conducted and participated in e conduct of, rendering e marks subject to forfeiture pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 1(a)() as well. The Criminal forfeiture is part of e defendant s sentence, so it is available only if e defendant is convicted of e underlying substantive offense. Lazarenko, supra. If e defendant is convicted, his interest in e property must be forfeited regardless of what at interest is, so it is not necessary to determine e extent of e interest. The only issues left to be determined concerning ownership are ose of non-defendant ird parties, whose interests are determined in e ancillary process. Only after at process is complete does e government obtain a Final Order of Forfeiture. The defendant s admissions are more an sufficient to establish e forfeitability of e marks, but e Court is not required to find a factual basis for e defendant s agreement to criminal forfeiture. See United States v. Ken Int l Co., Ltd., 11 F.d 1, 1 WL 11, at * ( Cir. 1).
9 nexus requirement of Rule.(b) having been satisfied, e proposed Preliminary Order should be entered. B. The Mechanics of e Criminal Forfeiture of e Mongols Registered Trademarks The Preliminary Order of Forfeiture becomes final as to e defendant at e time of sentencing (or before sentencing if, as here, defendant consents). Rule.(b)(). Following entry of e requested Preliminary Order, e second phase of e forfeiture proceedings may begin, to determine wheer any ird party rights may exist in e Mongols Registered Trademarks. Fed. R. Crim. P..(c)(1); 1 U.S.C. 1(l). Accordingly, e government respectfully requests at e Court enter e proposed Preliminary Order of Forfeiture lodged contemporaneously herewi, auorizing e government to seize e property subject to forfeiture (to e extent it has not already done so) and to commence proceedings governing ird-party rights. Fed. R. Crim. P..(b)(). The government will publish notice generally and give direct notice of e Preliminary Order to e sole known potential ird-party claimant, Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club, Inc. Following such notification and completion of any necessary ancillary proceedings, e government will submit, as appropriate, a final order of forfeiture pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P..(c). C. There Is No Need To Delay e Entry of e Requested Preliminary Order of Forfeiture The fact at e criminal case is still ongoing is no reason to delay e forfeiture proceedings concerning e Mongols Registered Trademarks. For e reasons explained above, e bases for forfeiture of e marks have been established. Furer
10 proceedings concerning e guilt of e remaining defendants will have no effect on e forfeitability of e marks. Defendant was e original registrant and owner of e marks until October 1, 00, eier as e National President of Mongols Nation (an unincorporated association), or as e owner/manager of Shotgun Productions, LLC. See exhibits A rough F to e Welk Declaration. These facts establish at e marks were acquired and maintained by defendant as part of e RICO enterprise. Moreover, defendant s admissions establish at e marks were property or rights at afforded a source of influence over e RICO enterprise, establishing a separate basis for forfeiture. The marks were temporarily assigned back to Mongol Nation (an unincorporated association) in October 00, at which time Hector Gonzalez, anoer defendant in is case, was e National President. See exhibits B, D and F to e Welk Decl. However, Mongol Nation (rough Gonzalez) subsequently transferred e marks in January 00 (in direct violation of is Court s restraining order of October, 00) to a newly-formed corporation called Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club, Inc. ( Mongols, Inc. ), which is e current owner of e marks. See exhibits B, F and H to e Welk Decl. The President of Mongols, Inc., Martin Guevara, is e current National President of e Even in e unlikely event at some of e remaining RICO defendants are acquitted, e nexus between e marks and e RICO enterprise which has already been proven by e pleas taken to date cannot be undone, and none of e individual defendants have any ownership rights in e marks in any event.
11 Mongols (see exhibit H to Welk Decl.), and no oer ird party appears to have standing to contest e forfeiture of e marks. If Gonzalez had retained control over e marks in his capacity of National President of Mongol Nation (e unincorporated association), it is possible at his status as a defendant in is case might have interfered wi his ability to defend against e forfeiture of e marks in an ancillary proceeding on behalf of e unincorporated association. However, since Gonzalez, as National President of Mongol Nation (an unincorporated association) opted to assign ose rights in eir entirety to a non-defendant ird party, neier he nor e unincorporated association he represented at e time of e transfer has any ownership or oer rights in e marks. In oer words, according to e clear chain of title at e Mongols emselves established, e only person wi e right to claim an interest in e marks in e ancillary proceeding is Mongols, Inc. The entry of e proposed Preliminary Order of Forfeiture will give Mongols, Inc. e opportunity to present its arguments as to why e marks should not be forfeited, someing 1 The contemptuous act of transferring and assigning e registered marks to Mongols, Inc. in e face of is Court s order prohibiting it arguably makes e transfer/assignment voidable by e Court, but e government is unlikely to request such a remedy since e transfer (1) deprives e unincorporated association of standing to make an ancillary claim, since it voluntarily assigned its entire interest in e marks to Mongols, Inc., and is erefore estopped from making an ownership claim in e ancillary proceeding; and () almost certainly makes it impossible as a matter of law for Mongols, Inc. to prevail in an ancillary proceeding on an innocent owner claim.
12 it is statutorily prohibited from doing prior to e entry of such an order. Finally, as e Court knows very well, e government s efforts to forfeit e Mongols Registered Trademarks have been e target of two separate collateral attacks so far (one of em by Mongols, Inc.). Moving forward wi e forfeiture proceedings wi respect to e marks will prevent future collateral attacks and allow e forfeiture proceedings wi respect to e marks to be concluded. III. FORFEITURE MUST BE PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING At sentencing, pursuant to Rule.(b)() of e Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, e "order of forfeiture becomes final as to e defendant and shall be made a part of e sentence and included in e judgment." The Court must pronounce e forfeiture conditions orally as part of e sentence imposed on e defendant, and must include e forfeiture in e judgment and commitment order. See United States v. Gaviria, 11 F.d 1, 10 (D.C. Cir. 1) (forfeiture portion of e defendant s sentence must be announced 0 in his presence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. (a)). The 1 government recommends e following language be read to e See 1 U.S.C. 1(i): Except as provided in subsection (l) [governing irdparty ancillary claims], no party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under is section may - (1) intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving e forfeiture of such property under is section....
13
Case 2:07-cr EEF-ALC Document 204 Filed 12/02/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:07-cr-00103-EEF-ALC Document 204 Filed 12/02/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * CRIMINAL DOCKET NO. 07-103 v. * SECTION: L JAMES
More informationCriminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2008: A Survey of Developments in the Case Law
Department of Justice From e SelectedWorks of Stefan D Cassella August, 2008 Criminal Forfeiture Procedure in 2008: A Survey of Developments in e Case Law Stefan D Cassella Available at: https://works.bepress.com/stefan_cassella/23/
More informationCase 1:18-cr TSE Document 249 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 5497
Case 1:18-cr-00083-TSE Document 249 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 5497 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CRIMINAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS
2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 503 Filed 11/14/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 16394 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, CASE No. 10-cr-20403
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 DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Respondents. Petitioner, Gerald Carter (hereafter, the petitioner ), is a state prisoner
Carter v. State of Sou Carolina et al Doc. 5 6:05-cv-02851-TLW Date Filed 10/06/2005 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Gerald Stephon Carter, #175348; vs.
More informationCase 2:17-cr GMS Document 196 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 3
Case :-cr-00-gms Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 ELIZABETH A. STRANGE First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona MATTHEW BINFORD Arizona State Bar No. 00 Matthew.Binford@usdoj.gov CAROLINA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
Lane, et al v. Capital Acquisitions, et al Doc. 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 04-60602-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON RICHARD LANE and FAITH LANE, v. Plaintiffs, CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS
More informationCase 1:18-cv LY Document 6 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 5. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division
Case 1:18-cv-00504-LY Document 6 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 5 In e United States District Court for e Western District of Texas Austin Division Jack Darrell Hearn, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No.
More informationCase: 2:13-cr MHW-TPK Doc #: 113 Filed: 08/29/17 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 809
Case: 2:13-cr-00183-MHW-TPK Doc #: 113 Filed: 08/29/17 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 809 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:99-cr DJC Document 1323 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:99-cr-10371-DJC Document 1323 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 99-10371-DJC ) JAMES J. BULGER, )
More informationCase 3:11-cr DRD Document 22 Filed 03/15/11 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:11-cr-00071-DRD Document 22 Filed 03/15/11 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 11-71 (I) R I)') HORIZON LINES,
More informationCase 1:17-cr ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, Jr., and RICHARD W. GATES III, Crim.
More informationCase3:09-cv JSW Document142 Filed09/22/11 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-00-JSW Document Filed0// Page of 0 MELINDA HAAG (SBN United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN Chief, Civil Division JONATHAN U. LEE (SBN NEIL T. TSENG (SBN Assistant United States Attorneys
More informationCase 2:10-cr SRB Document 303 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cr-0-srb Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 ANN BIRMINGHAM SCHEEL Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona MONICA B. KLAPPER Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No.0 Monica.Klapper@usdoj.gov
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-01-CR-W-FJG ) WILLIAM ENEFF, ) ) ) Defendant. )
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Firm, Attorney at Law State Bar Number: Address: Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE PEOPLE OF
More informationCase: 3:14-cv slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8
Case: 3:14-cv-00734-slc Document #: 77 Filed: 04/27/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN WOODMAN S FOOD MARKET, INC., v. Plaintiff, THE CLOROX COMPANY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
McPhail v. LYFT, INC. Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JENNIFER MCPHAIL A-14-CA-829-LY LYFT, INC. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-06-CR-W-FJG ) MICHAEL FITZWATER, ) ) ) Defendant.
More informationWILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case: 19-1268 Document: 14 Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 1 WILLIAM J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) HERBERT W. TITUS (VA OF COUNSEL) JEREMIAH L. MORGAN (D.C., CA ONLY) ROBERT J. OLSON (VA, D.C.) WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. ATTORNEYS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff, ) Criminal Case 03-467-A ) v. ) Hearing: March 23, 2005 ) WILLIAM ELIOT
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION K. A. F., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 00 DR XXX N T. J. F., Respondent, ORDER ON WIFE S MOTION TO COMPEL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION. vs. CASE NO. 5:01cr22-RH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 5:01cr22-RH WILLIAM JEFFERSON, Defendant. / DEFENDANT S SENTENCING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO WOB PLAINTIFFS COMBINED SUR-REPLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-431-WOB KEITH RENE GUY, SR., et al PLAINTIFFS VS. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, et al DEFENDANTS
More informationDEFENSE NEWSLETTER IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5
IN THIS ISSUE: SUPREME COURT UPDATE... p.1 11TH CIRCUIT CASE SUMMARIES p.1 TABLE OF CASES IN THIS ISSUE. p.5 DEFENSE NEWSLETTER Vol. 14, No. 1 Kaleen M. Williams, Federal Public Defender November 2008
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys July 2016 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 3:75-CR :06-CV-24-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 3:75-CR-26-3 5:06-CV-24-F UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JEFFREY R. MacDONALD Defendant UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER M. WILLIAMSON, State Bar # 0 WILLIAMSON & KRAUSS Panay Way, Suite One Marina del Rey, CA 0 () - Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2005 Session RALPH ALLEY, ET AL., v. QUEBECOR WORLD KINGSPORT, INC., d/n/a QUEBECOR WORLD HAWKINS, INC. Direct Appeal from e Circuit Court for Hawkins
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NIALL E. LYNCH (CSBN ) Filed April 0, 00 LIDIA SPIROFF (CSBN ) SIDNEY A. MAJALYA (CSBN 00) LARA M. KROOP (CSBN ) Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 0 Golden Gate Avenue Box 0, Room -01 San Francisco,
More informationIN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS. No CR No CR
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-15-00133-CR No. 10-15-00134-CR THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. LOUIS HOUSTON JARVIS, JR. AND JENNIFER RENEE JONES, Appellant Appellees From the County Court at Law No. 1 McLennan
More informationNO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOYLE RANDALL PAROLINE PETITIONER VS. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENTS and AMY UNKNOWN ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationCase 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 29 Filed 02/18/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 LESTER J. MARSTON - California State Bar No. 000 E-mail: marston@pacbell.net RAPPORT AND MARSTON 0 West Perkins Street P.O. Box Ukiah, CA Telephone:
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 5:09CR27 ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 5:09CR27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BERNARD VON NOTHAUS CONSOLIDATED REPORT ON PENDING PETITIONS
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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
17-1591-cr United States v. Steve Papas 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
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CASE NO CR. DEUNDRA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CASE NO. 05-10-00991-CR DEUNDRA JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE 194 DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellee,
Appellate Case: 11-7029 Document: 01018668285 Date Filed: 07/01/2011 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7029 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. KERRY
More informationCase 1:08-cv SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:08-cv-00323-SJM Document 26 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; ALLEGHENY DEFENSE
More informationCase 3:10-cr FDW Document 3 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKET NO. 3:1 OCR59-W v. PLEA AGREEMENT RODNEY REED CAVERLY NOW COMES the United States of America,
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C. A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys July 2015 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin and
More informationOrganized Crime And Racketeering
U.S. Attorneys» U.S. Attorneys' Manual» Title 9: Criminal 9 110.000 Organized Crime And Racketeering 9 110.010 Introduction 9 110.100 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 9 110.101 Division
More informationCase 2:15-cr FFM Document 38 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:114
Case 2:15-cr-00590-FFM Document 38 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:114 1 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney 2 LAWRENCE S. MIDDLETON Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Criminal Division
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-1341 Document: 31 Filed: 04/11/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT -vs- 6 Cir #14-1341 ED Mi #12-civ-10285 RICHARD SNYDER,
More informationCase 2:06-cv TJW Document 17 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 2:06-cv-00385-TJW Document 17 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WILLIE RAY, ET AL. Vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-385
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 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case File No. 10-CV-00137
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, v. Case File No. 10-CV-00137 VILLAGE OF HOBART, WISCONSIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF S REPLY BRIEF
More informationCase 1:18-cr NGG-VMS Document 308 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 3048
Case 1:18-cr-00204-NGG-VMS Document 308 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 3048 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, - v. - KEITH RANIERE, CLARE BRONFMAN,
More informationIntroduction to Social & Political Philosophy
Introduction 1 Introduction to Social & Political Philosophy what is Social and Political Philosophy? perhaps it is best to begin wi e distinction between political philosophy and political science political
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00926-JTM-JCW Document 376 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROY FERRAND, LUTHER SCOTT, JR., and LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
More informationNo. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * * * * * * * By: C. A. Martin, III * * * * *
Judgment rendered July 9, 2014. Application for rehearing may be filed wiin e delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 49,116-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * LANDFORD ANTHONY
More informationUnited States v. Biocompatibles, Inc. Criminal Case No.
U.S. Department of Justice Channing D. Phillips United States Attorney District of Columbia Judiciary Center 555 Fourth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 September 12, 2016 Richard L. Scheff, Esq. Montgomery
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No CV-HLM-4. versus
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-13740 D.C. Docket No. 04-00003-CV-HLM-4 SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, GALE PELFREY, BONNIE JONES, LORA SISSON, individually and on behalf
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 informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:05-cv-00363-MHS-DDB Document 16 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 441 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RA INVESTMENT I, LLC, ET AL. vs. Case No. 4:05CV363
More information8:15-cr JFB-FG3 Doc # 7 Filed: 04/10/15 Page 1 of 7 - Page ID # 19
8:15-cr-00116-JFB-FG3 Doc # 7 Filed: 04/10/15 Page 1 of 7 - Page ID # 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA vs. Plaintiff, LA WREN CE MERRICK JR.,
More informationCase 3:16-cr K Document 4 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6
Case 3:16-cr-00148-K Document 4 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2o:s APR 14 PM.3: 32 DALLAS DIVISION / Y CL rnx_...
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 LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION MEMORANDUM RULING
Case 6:09-cv-01438-RTH-CMH Document 329 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 6865 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION Comar Marine Corp. versus Raider Marine
More informationCase 2:09-cv MCE-KJM Document 32 Filed 08/26/2009 Page 1 of 12
Case :0-cv-0-MCE-KJM Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 Alan Gura (Calif. Bar No. ) Gura & Possessky, PLLC 0 N. Columbus St., Suite 0 Alexandria, VA 0..0/Fax 0.. Donald E.J. Kilmer, Jr. (Calif. Bar No. )
More informationCase: Document: 4-1 Filed: 07/08/2018 Page: 1. No In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case: 18-5683 Document: 4-1 Filed: 07/08/2018 Page: 1 No. 18-5683 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Appellant v. RENE BOUCHER Appellee On Appeal from
More informationS e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s
Published By Joaquin & Duncan, L.L.C.; A Law Firm of Federal Sentencing Attorneys September 2017 S e n t e n c i n g P a r t n e r s About Sentencing Partners: Sentencing Partners is published by Joaquin
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 10, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES THOMAS LARD, II and DOREEN REBECA GATES LARD Appeal from e Circuit Court for Tipton
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:17-cr-00229-AT-CMS Document 42 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARED WHEAT, JOHN
More informationETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESOLVING FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS. Eastern District of Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Knoxville August 10, 2017
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN RESOLVING FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS Eastern District of Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Knoxville August 10, 2017 I. Forfeiture and Restitution Stefan D. Cassella Asset Forfeiture
More informationDefendants. DEFENDANTS PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WESLEY VAUGHN, Plaintiff, -against- JAMES A. NICHOLS, Deputy Superintendent of Programs (MID-STATE); GLENN S. GOORD, Commissioner (D.O.C.S.);
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI. Consolidated Supplemental Letter Brief
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI May 18, 2012 JIM HOOD ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION United States Court of Appeals for e Fif Circuit Office of e Clerk Attn: Ms. Sabrina M. Hains 600 S. Maestri Place
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JESSE JOE HERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, vs. No. 3:06-CV-846-P NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBERTS IRRIGATION COMPANY, INC., v. HORTAU CORP. and HORTAU, INC., Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER 16-cv-0028-slc Defendants. Plaintiff
More informationCAPITAL CASE. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner. vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden.
CAPITAL CASE No. 12-7720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DONALD WAYNE STROUTH, Petitioner vs. ROLAND W. COLSON, Warden Respondent ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : v. : CRIMINAL NO. 09-020 : ELI LILLY AND COMPANY : GOVERNMENT S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN ANTICIPATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationPLEA AGREEMENT THOMAS QUINN
1 1 1 1 NIALL E. LYNCH (CSBN 1) Original Filed //0 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS (CSBN ) MAY Y. LEE (CSBN ) BRIGID S. BIERMANN (CSBN 0) CHARLES P. REICHMANN (CSBN ) U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ) ) v.
Case :-cr-00-ghk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 SEAN K. KENNEDY (No. Federal Public Defender (E-mail: Sean_Kennedy@fd.org FIRDAUS F. DORDI (No. (E-mail: Firdaus_Dordi@fd.org Deputy Federal
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER-APPELLANT
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Appeal No. 04-3946 (Case No. 00-C-0650 (E.D. Wis.)) WARREN GOODMAN, v. Petitioner-Appellant, DANIEL BERTRAND, Warden, Green Bay Correctional Institution,
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 informationJuly 6, 2009 FILED. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker ALLEN Z. WOLFSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 6, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court ALLEN Z. WOLFSON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED
More informationSUMMARY ORDER. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
17-2112-cr United States v. Richards 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
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. No. CR
DEBRA WONG YANG United States Attorney SANDRA R. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Tax Division (Cal. State Bar # ) 00 North Los Angeles Street Federal Building, Room 1 Los Angeles, California
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 informationCase 1:09-cr WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10. -against- : 09 Cr. 581 (WHP) PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, et. al., : OPINION & ORDER
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------- X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : -against- : 09
More informationCase 2:14-cr JC Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:100
Case 2:14-cr-00639-JC Document 41 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:100 1 ANDRE BIROTTE JR. United States Attorney 2 ROBERT E. DUGDALE '.Assistant United States Attorney 3 Chief, Criminal Division
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2014 Session WILLIAM D. STALKER, ET AL. v. DAVID R. NUTTER, ET AL. Appeal from e Chancery Court for Sumner County No. 2008C1 Tom E. Gray, Chancellor
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 informationCase 6:09-cv GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Case 6:09-cv-00200-GFVT Document 19 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON Defendant. Civil No. 09-200-GFVT ORDER *** *** *** ***
More informationCase 1:13-cr LJO-SKO Document 151 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cr-000-ljo-sko Document Filed 0/0/ Page of BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney KAREN A. ESCOBAR MICHAEL G. TIERNEY Assistant United States Attorneys 00 Tulare St., Suite 0 Fresno, CA Telephone:
More informationCase 9:14-cv KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:14-cv-81184-KAM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2015 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-81184-CIV-MARRA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More informationA PLAINTIFF S GUIDE TO CIVIL IMMUNITY
A PLAINTIFF S GUIDE TO CIVIL IMMUNITY Mike Comer Patterson Comer Law Firm 0 Main Ave., Ste. A Norport, AL 5476 (05) 759-99 Ph. (05) 759-99 Fax Immunity from e civil liability at ordinarily attaches to
More informationPlaintiff, Defendants. DEFENDANTS PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMARE SELTON, Plaintiff, -against- TROY MITCHELL; E. RIZZO; M. WOODARD; B. SMITH, 04-CV-0989 (LEK)(RFT) Defendants. DEFENDANTS PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46 (1:01CR45 & 3:01CR11-3)
Greer v. USA Doc. 19 Case 1:04-cv-00046-LHT Document 19 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46
More informationCase 9:15-cv KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:15-cv-80328-KAM Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2015 Page 1 of 10 DAVID A. FAILLA and DONNA A. FAILLA, Appellants, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :-cv-00-rcj -VPC Document Filed 0// Page of DANIEL G. BOGDEN United States Attorney HOLLY A. VANCE Assistant United States Attorney 00 West Liberty Street, Suite 00 Reno, Nevada 0 Tel: ( - Fax: (
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BARBARA BYRD-BENNETT No. 15 CR 620 Hon. Edmond E. Chang PLEA AGREEMENT 1. This Plea Agreement between
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 09-00296-02-CR-W-FJG ) ERIC G. BURKITT, ) ) ) Defendant.
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 informationCJA WD Missouri Asset Forfeiture Training 2014
CJA WD Missouri Asset Forfeiture Training 2014 Robert W. Biddle, Nathans & Biddle LLP, Baltimore, with some slides contributed by Paula Junghans, Esq., Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, D.C. Forfeiture
More informationCase 2:08-cr DDP Document 37 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 5. United States District Court Central District of California
Case 2:08-cr-01160-DDP Document 37 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 5 United States District Court Central District of California UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Docket No. CR 08-01160 DDP Defendant akas: none
More information