Cases

MEMORANDUM** The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. The regulations provide that, absent certain exceptional circumstances, a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be' reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003

MEMORANDUM OPINION TANYA S. CHUTKAN, United States District Judge Before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for U Visa Certification. Upon consideration of the motion, Defendant District of Columbia’s opposition thereto, and Plaintiffs reply in support thereof, and for the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROU

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-23-00278-CR EX PARTE Alfonso Espinoza GONZALEZ From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 13721CR Honorab

PER CURIAM Employer seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order that affirmed an award of temporary disability compensation. The Board relied on its decision in Kenneth P. Bundy, 48 Van Natta 2501 (1996), which we subsequently reversed. Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Bundy, 159 Or App 44, 978 P2d 385 (1999). Whether our decision in Bundy will affect the determination of claimant’s entitlement to tempora

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered July 15, 2013, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, gang assault in the first degree, attempted gang assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degr

MEMORANDUM OPINION Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge Before the Court are petitioners’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 24] and respondents’ Motion to Dismiss in Part [Dkt. No. 27] and Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 28]. The motions have been fully briefed, oral argument has been heard, and for the reasons discussed in this Memorandum Opinion,

*294 E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: Francisco Javier Castro-Alfonso (“Castro-Alfonso”) challenges the district court’s application of a 16-level sentencing enhancement that was based on his previous conviction of aggravated burglary under Tennessee law. We affirm, because the Tennessee conviction, like th

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL X RUBÉN A. MIRANDA CERTIORARI MERCADO POR SÍ Y procedente del COMO INTEGRANTE Tribunal de Primera DE LA SUCESIÓN DE Instancia, Sala RICARDO MIRANDA Y KLCE202500403 Superior de Aguada BERNARDA MERCADO, SONIA

653 F.3d 1137 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel REYES-ALFONSO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 10-2091. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. July 27, 2011. *1139 Andre C. Poissant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant Daniel Reyes-Alfonso. Terri J. Abern

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL ESPECIAL ANTONIO ALFONSO CORA APELACIÓN ROSARIO procedente del Tribunal de Apelante Primera Instancia, Sala Sup

OPINION ANDREWS, Judge. Defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration (CSP) in the second degree in violation of § 30-9-ll(B), N.M.S.A.1978, and appeals, raising four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment under which he was convicted in view of the fact that another indictment charging the same offense had been issued earlier; (

*8 Opinion WERDEGAR, J. Defendants Orlando Gene Romero and Christopher Self were convicted of the first degree murders of Joey Mans, Timothy Jones, and Jose Aragon, the willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murders of Kenneth Mills, Paulita Williams, and Randolph Rankins, the att

Filed 10/14/15 (unmodified opn. attached) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S055856 v. ) ) ORLANDO GENE ROMERO and ) CHRISTOPHER SELF, ) )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 2005 Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 8, 2005. In The

MATHIAS, Judge. [1] The Inspection Department of the City of Hammond (“the City”) filed a small claims action against Alfonso M. Aguayo (“Aguayo”) in Lake Superior Court seeking to recover rental registration fees. Aguayo initially failed to respond, and the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the City. Aguayo then hired attor

328 S.W.3d 1 (2009) Mark CANTU, Appellant, v. GUERRA & MOORE, LTD., LLP., and Romero, Gonzalez & Benavides, LLP, Appellees. No. 04-08-00786-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. October 28, 2009. *3 Juan Rocha, Jr., Robert Schell, Law Office of Mark A. Cantu, McAllen, TX, for Appellant. David J. Lumber, Guerr

*597TEXTO COMPLETO DE LA SENTENCIA La peticionaria, señora Mariapne López Reyes, nos solicita que revoquemos las ordenes dictadas el 6 de agosto de 2007 por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala de San Juan (TPI). Mediante las mismas, dicho foro: (1) declaró no ha lugar la solicitud para deponer a la psicóloga de la recurrida mediante cinta videomagnetofónica, (2) declaró no ha

El Juez Asociado Señor Cadilla Ginorio emitió la opinión del Tribunal. Al apelante Sebastián Romero. Cuesta se le acusó (1) por el fiscal por una infracción al Art. 260 del Código Penal de Puerto Rico (33 L.P.R.A. see. 966) en su segundo párrafo. (2) La vista del caso se celebró en el Tribunal Superior, Sala de Mayagüez, ante jurado. La

975 So.2d 511 (2008) Mari HAUETER-HERRANZ, Alexander Cole International Holdings Ltd., a Bahamian corporation, U.S. Stox Capital Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Happy Real Estate, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Agustin Miguel Torres ROMERO, Maria Luz Francisco Fuente, Julio Acebes Gonzalez, Antonio Parro Martin, Luis Alfonso Castelao Medina, Ignacio Bermejo Messeguer, Rafael Salado Osuna, Josep Aulinas Sacrest,

PER CURIAM: In this interlocutory appeal, officers with the Miami-Dade Police Department appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in a failure to intervene claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The officers’ argument in favor of qualified immunity is based on allegations made on the face of the amended complaint. The officers contend the allegations fail to show they violated Anthony Ledea’s constitutio