Cases

MEMORANDUM ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge. Currently before me is Anthony Trim-ble’s pro se Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny Trimble’s § 2255 motion. I. BACKGROUND On April 24, 2007, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a superseding indictment ch

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Judge Wilson taking no part.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered December 10, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry of a juro

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered August 8, 2013, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was involuntary and coerced b

Peters, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Ferreira, J.), entered June 11, 2014, which sua sponte dismissed the claim. Claimants, proceeding pro se, filed a claim attempting to commence an action against defendant. The Court of Claims, on its own motion, directed claimants to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed for failure to serve it on the Attorney General in

259 P.3d 850 (2011) 2011 OK CIV APP 85 The HOWARD FAMILY CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC.; Howard Investments, LLC; Robert E. Howard, II, an Individual; Marilyn Patricia Kelly, an Individual; Scott and Carlita Beauvais, Husband and Wife; Greg and Jill Castro, Husband and Wife; Jimmie M. Richardson, an Individual; Dennis Davis, an Individual; Don Koebelin, an Individual; Chris Fleming, an Individual; David Shear, an Individual; Brian Lo

83 F.Supp.2d 1034 (1999) Von R. TRIMBLE, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASARCO INCORPORATED, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant. No. 8:97CV428. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. May 20, 1999. *1035 *1036 Robert S. Lannin, Richard W. DeWitt, Croker, Huck Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Phillip S. L

James Russell Trimble v. State of Maryland, No. 1834, September Term 2022. Opinion by Getty, Joseph M., J. HEADNOTES: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – JUVENILE RESTORATION ACT – WEIGHT OF FACTORS When considering a motion for a reduction of sentence under the Juvenile Restoration Act, Md. Code (2001, 2018 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.), Crim. Proc. Art. § 8-110, a court is not required to weigh any one of the factors enumerated in Section 8-110(d) more heavily than the others. Rather, when deciding whether to red

James Russell Trimble v. State of Maryland, No. 28, September Term, 2024. Opinion by Eaves, J. MD. CODE ANN., CRIMINAL PROCEDURE § 8-110(d)(1) – CONSIDERATION OF AGE In considering a motion for reduction of sentence filed under § 8-110 of the Criminal Procedure Article (“CP”) of the Annotated Code of Maryland (2018 Repl. Vol., 2024 Supp.), the circuit court has broad discretion to determine whether an individual is a danger to the public and whether the interests of justice will be served by a

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-17-00030-CV IN THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM F. TRIMBLE, DECEASED ---------- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. CIV-13-0523 ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Opinion issued June 26, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00128-CV ——————————— VICTOR ANTHONY CHARLES, Appellant V. INVUM THREE, L

Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr., In this non-point system case, appellant challenges the constitutionality of Section 618 of the The Vehicle *445Code1 alleging that this section violates due process because it authorizes the suspension of a license with or without a departmental hearing. Appellant also contends that the mis

FfUIB IN The §6Uftsf Appeals RECEIVED \H Sixth DfStffet The Court of Aopeals Sixth District 1 9 2015

Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Castellino, J.), entered August 29, 2002 in Chemung County, which denied third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Plaintiff Levi R. Trimble (hereinafter plaintiff) and his wife brought this action to recover for personal injuries he sustained in the course of his employment with third-party defendant, Ames True Tem

MEMORANDUM NEALON, District Judge. David Beitler Trimble stands charged with a violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 462, in that on November 4, 1968, he willfully and knowingly refused to submit to induction into the Armed Forces at the New Cumberland Army Depot, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Trial was had before this Court on July 23, 1969, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0102p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ BARBARA JEAN MERCER, │ Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appell

On October 14, 1991, plaintiff Thomas Breining was installing two-foot-by-two-foot circuit breakers in an elevated substation with Ottis Carpenter and Tim Leugering for defendant Mayers Electric Company ("Mayers") at the General Electric Aircraft Engines Plant in Cincinnati, Ohio. After the three men hauled up a circuit breaker to the substation floor, Carpenter and Leugering diverted their attention from Breining. Breining alleged that he next stepped back and to the side, became entangled i

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J. A jury found Lamar Anthony McVay (“Defendant”) guilty of robbeiy in the first degree, see section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. Defendant appeals his conviction and argues that the trial court erred by: (1) “overruling defense counsel’s objections to Stat

[Cite as Anthony v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2011-Ohio-6898.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.980

OPINION OF THE COURT GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. The appellants were sentenced following their conviction on several counts of an indictment charging violations of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, and the conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. They both contend on appeal (1) that the evidence was