Cases

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Craig Daniels appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons state

Affirmed.

161 F.3d 23 U.S.v.Herbert Daniels, Wayne Hiland, Floyd Daniels NO. 96-5364 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. October 06, 1998 S.D.Fla., 152 F.3d 933 1 DENIALS OF REHEARING EN BANC.

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2023-K-0313 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL FLOYD FALKINS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPLICATION FOR WRITS DIRECTED TO

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge “Worm or beetle—drought or tempest— on a farmer’s land may fall, / But for first-class ruination, trust a mortgage ‘gainst them all.” Will Carleton may have written these words over a century ago to capture the plight of rural American farmers, but Plaintiff Anthony Floyd alleges that he

ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Introduction This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Zane Floyd, a Nevada prisoner sentenced to death. The case is before the court for resolution of the merits of the claims remaining in Floyd’s second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and

ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE Plaintiffs, Tabitha Gentry, Vincent Minton, Michael Herron, Adam Walker, Brian Burgess, Anna Chastain, and Janelle South, are a group of detainees who were housed in padded isolation cells of the Floyd County Jail in conditions they claim were unconstitutional. Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. For the reaso

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Leon Hoover appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamara Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Daniels,

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Alexander v. State, 88 So.3d 417, 418-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding section 775.084(3)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires that the trial court impose a habitual offender sentence where the criteria of the statute are otherwise met, even if the defendant’s offense falls within section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes). WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New *1019York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.

Boggs, Judge. William Floyd appeals, contending in his sole enumeration of error that insufficient evidence supports his burglary conviction. We disagree and affirm. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the ess

LYNCH, Chief Judge. In May of 2007, there were two shooting deaths, one of a civilian, Liko Kenney, and one of a police officer, Bruce McKay, following traffic stops in Franconia, New Hampshire. Kenney shot Officer McKay four times and ran over him twice with his car. Thereafter, a witness to the shooting, Gregory Floyd, approached Kenney and asked him to drop his weapon. When K

365 S.C. 56 (2005) 615 S.E.2d 465 Anne H. FLOYD, Respondent, v. Laurens W. FLOYD, Jr., individually and as Trustee of the Laurens Floyd Trust and the Charitable Remainder Trust of Laurens W. Floyd and Anne H. Floyd; Daniel D. Bozard as cotrustee of the Laurens Floyd Trust and the Charitable Remainder Trust of Laurens W. Floyd and Anne H. Floyd; Julia M. Floyd; and Robert H. Floyd, Individually, of whom Laurens Floyd, J

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. Defendant was convicted of second degree felony murder, second degree manslaughter, and second degree criminal possession of a weapon for murdering Leon Hill during the robbery of an underground dice game. Before jury selection, defense counsel informed the judge that defendant

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Antonio Demetrius Floyd, argues that his combined eighty-year sentence for two counts of armed robbery violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it constitutes the functional equivalent of a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense, which was held to be unconstitutional in Graham v. Florida, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 82

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered April 9, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant contends that his right to a public trial was violated when the Supreme

Kravitz, Associate Judge: A Superior Court jury found appellants Floyd K. Long and Alonzo J. Ferrell guilty of conspiracy, armed robbery, and other offenses arising from a series of street robberies committed by masked gunmen operating out of a stolen Dodge Intrepid late on Christmas Eve 2012. Appellants argue that the trial judge erred by failing to suppress a show-up identific

OPINION AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded Floyd and Ligón to the District Court to resolve pending motions to intervene in these actions and to “effectuate a settlement” between “such concerned or interested parties as the District Court deems appropriate.” Floyd, ECF No. 426; Ligon, ECF

OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. BACKGROUND By letter dated August 27, 2013, defendants (“City”) in the above-captioned actions moved for a stay of this Court’s August 12 Orders pending appellate review.1 On September 6, 2013, plaintiffs opposed the request for a stay.2 Declarations in opposit