Cases

MANION, Circuit Judge. An Indiana jury convicted Anthony Davis of two counts of delivering cocaine. After pursuing a direct appeal and seeking collateral relief in the Indiana courts, Davis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court asserting, among other claims, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. Davis

AFFIRMED.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 04-2349 ANTHONY D. DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JOHN R. VANNATTA, Respondent-Appellee. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of

¶27 (dissenting) — Blakely6 requires a jury to find any aggravating factor increasing a sentence beyond the maximum for the underlying crime. Here, the jury through special interrogatory found that T.D.B.’s “particular vulnerability” aggravated Anthony Davis’ unlawful imprisonment of this child victim. In my view, the analysis should end here. But Davis claims, and the majority holds, that the trial judge erred

MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...707 A. Findings Of Fact ...707 1. The stop ...707 2. Initial investigation ...707 3. The wait

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00455-CV Anthony Davis, Appellant v. Keith L. Markey, M.D. and Patrick F. Kelly, D.O., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-04-00455-CV Anthony Davis, Appellant v. Keith L. Markey, M.D. and Patrick F. Kelly, D.O., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C-03-0637-C, HONORABLE TOM GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION

—In a proceeding for visitation pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals (1) from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Cooney, J.), entered November 18, 1997, which found that it is not in the child’s best interests to visit with his father, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered November 20, 1997, as denied the petition. Ordered that on the Court’s

¶1 Anthony Davis was convicted of harassment, unlawful imprisonment, third degree malicious mischief, two counts of fourth degree assault, and violation of a domestic violence protection order. Based on the jury’s determination an aggravating factor existed, the court imposed an exceptional sentence on the unlawful imprisonment conviction. Claiming the prosecutor committed misconduct, the evidence did not support the conviction for unlawful imprisonment,

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 04-1-01828-6, Jerome J. Leveque, J., entered January 26, 2005, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment affirmed and petition denied by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, J. and Thompson, J. Pro Tern. Now published at 133 Wn. App. 415.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *182 ORDER PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order staying the case pending this court’s judgment on Davis’ prior interlocutory notice of appeal. This c

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Scott Davis, II appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006), and denying his motion to appoint counsel, motions for extension of time, motion to stay, and

¶ 1. KESSLER, J. On May 26, 2013, Anthony Darnell Davis was charged with two counts of physical abuse of a child by recklessly causing great bodily harm.1 According to the criminal complaint, on May 14, 2013, L.D.'s mother, Lakiesha Bowie, took L.D. to Children's Hospital of Wisconsin because L.D. had blood in the whites of her eyes and redness around her eyes. It was t

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered March 2, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant established prima facie

ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Appellant Kim Davis. The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties agree that Kentucky Senate Bill 216, which will go into effect before we are scheduled to hear oral argument in this case, will render these consolidated appeals moot. We therefore dismiss these appeals and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to vaca

775 N.E.2d 1182 (2002) Anthony D. DAVIS, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 20A05-0203-PC-142. Court of Appeals of Indiana. October 3, 2002. *1184 Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Brian Eisenman, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant. Steve Carter,

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following an investigation into an incident where an inmate had coffee thrown on him that caused a delay in the meal run, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduc

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Following an investigation into an incident where an inmate had coffee thrown on him that caused a delay in the meal run, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in violent conduc

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER David L. Bunning, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court put the national debate concerning same-sex marriage to bed. The Court determined that same-sex couples need not “await further legislation, litigation, and debate,” and held that the Constitution’s fundamental right to marry extended to same-sex coupl

MEMORANDUM ** Davis appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here. We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. McMurtrey v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir.2008).