Cases

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, againstAngelo Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Felicia A. Mennin, J. at plea; Richard M. Weinberg, J. at sentencing), rendered November 26, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and imposing sentence. <

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: Burbank Police Department Detective Angelo Dahlia witnessed his fellow police officers physically abuse suspects in custody during a high profile robbery investigation.1 Among other acts of misconduct, Detective Dahlia saw Lieutenant Rodriguez grab a suspect by the throat and threaten him by placing a gun under his eye. Detective

OPINION WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: I. Four days after Angelo Dahlia, a detective in the City of Burbank Police Department, disclosed the alleged use of abusive interrogation tactics by his colleagues to the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, he was placed on administrative leave by Chief of Police Tim Stehr. That decision prompted

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGELO DAHLIA , No. 10-55978 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:09-cv-08453- MMM-JEM OMAR RODRIGUEZ, individually and as a Lieutenant of the Burbank Police Department; EDGAR ORDER PENARANDA , individually and as a S

FILED FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGELO DAHLIA, No. 10-55978 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-CV-08453-MMM-

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. On September 20,1995, Angelo Rodriguez, a patrol officer in the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”), filed a four-count complaint against the City of Chicago. In that complaint, Officer Rodriguez alleged that the City discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by refusing to exempt him from an assignment to stand guard outside an abortion clinic on November 19, 1994. The only claim at issue i

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), rendered August 1, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years’ probation and forfeiture of $173, unanimously affirmed. Although Penal Law § 480.00 ap

PER CURIAM: * On March 29, 2018, we issued an Order to Show Cause to Counsel of record for Rosendo Rodriguez in this last minute capital case successive habeas filing, seeking answers to two questions: (1) Precisely when and under what circumstances did counsel "first became aware" of the lawsuit that was filed

464 F.Supp.2d 387 (2006) UNITED STATES of America v. Angelo RODRIGUEZ. No. CR.03 789 FLW. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 7, 2006. Marc D. Larkins, Office of the United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for United States of America. ORDER WOLFSON, District Judge. This matter having come before the Court on the j

430 F.Supp.2d 388 (2006) UNITED STATES of America v. Angelo C. RODRIGUEZ. Criminal Action No. 03-789 (FLW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. May 12, 2006. *389 *390 Christopher J. Christie, United States Attorney by Mark D. Larkins, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the U

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Rodriguez-Penaloza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rodriguez-Pena-loza has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions

ORDER For the reasons set forth in the contemporaneously-issued certificate, we find that this case involves a dispositive question of Delaware law, the answer to which is not clear from controlling precedent in Delaware judicial decisions. We therefore certify a question of law to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 41.

ORDER KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: Appellant Pedro Antonio Flores Rodriguez petitioned for the return of his child, A.S.F.S., under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the -International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The district court denied Flores’s petition. Flores now appeals, and we REVERSE in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND f

975 F.Supp. 1055 (1997) Angelo RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. The CITY of CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, defendant. No. 95 C 5371. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 11, 1997. *1056 *1057 Kevin J. Todd, David Shaneyfelt, Bruce J. Van Heukelem, Hoogendorn, Talbot

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 2407012691 ) ANGELO RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Submitted: January 7, 2025 Decided:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 124,071 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. PATRICK ANGELO JR. Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The summary denial of a petition for DNA testing under K.S

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered May 2, 2016. The order denied the motion of defendant Nicholas D’Angelo to dismiss the complaint against him, granted the cross motion of plaintiff to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc and granted the cross motion of plaintiff to compel Nicholas D’Angelo to provide certain au

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered August 21, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. No issues of fact have been raised or considered. In ruling upon the defendant’s Sandoval motion, Criminal Term specifically

Appellant was convicted by a jury of possession of marihuana of more than five but less than fifty pounds and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He brings two points of error: (1) that the indictment is fundamentally defective because the indictment was returned by the Kleberg County Grand Jury for a crime that occurred in Kenedy County and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm. Appellant was arrested at the U.S. Border Patrol check