Cases

*470MEMORANDUM ** Jose Armenta-Alcantar appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Armenta-Alcantar • contends that the government’s refusal to move for an

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Pierce *1031County, No. 89-1-00643-1, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered August 24, 1989. Reversed by unpublished opinion per Worswick, C.J., concurred in by Petrich and Alexander, JJ.

Case: 18-50056 Document: 00515111142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-50056 FILED

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff Bank Leumi USA (“BLUSA”) filed this action seeking a declaration that: (1) the contractual limitation on BLUSA’s liability with respect to the brokerage accounts of David Ehrlich, Enrique Ehrlich, Sara Goldstein, and Angela Tykocki (the “Defendants”) is valid and enforceable; (2) that BLUSA is not liable in contra

PRISCILLA R. OWEN, Circuit Judge: The opinion issued June 29, 2016 is withdrawn by the panel, and the following is issued in its place: Jose Roberto Gomez-Valle appeals a 34-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to harboring undocumented aliens for financial gain. Gomez-Valle contends that the district court erred in failing to grant a mitigatin

NUMBER 13-13-00717-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG DOUGLAS MICHAEL BULTHUIS, Appellant, v. JOSE JUAN AVILA, Appellee. On appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Te

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-1535 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court f

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-2209 ___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Juan Alcantar was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846, and of attempting to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced Alcantar to a prison term of 188 months. In this appeal, Alcantar argues that the evidence at

MEMORANDUM2 On Remand from the United States Supreme Court Defendants Magana and Alcantar were indicted for conspiracy to manufacture, *4distribute, and possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute; they were also indicted for aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine and the possession of methamphetamine with the in

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 99-3861, 99-3917 and 99-3922 Jose A. Bazan-Reyes, Wincenty Z. Maciasowicz, and Arnoldo Gomez-Vela, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and John D. Ashcroft, Respondents-Appellees. Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Nos. A90 614 059, A44 224 586, A31 164 151 Argued November 9, 2000--Decided July 5, 2001 Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Ripple and Kanne, Cir

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jose Adolfo Meza-Gon-zalez of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and of attempt to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The district court 1 sentenced Meza-Gon-zalez to 188 months. On appeal Meza-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred in denying his moti

Filed 12/23/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ALICIA VALLEJO, H048233 (Santa Clara County Petitioner, Super. Ct. No. C1897470) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Petitioners Jose A. Bazan-Reyes, Win-centy Z. Maciasowicz, and Arnoldo Gomez-Vela seek review of decisions by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) finding them removable as a result of state drunk driving offenses. These cases were consolidated for the purposes of appeal because they all raise the s

673 N.E.2d 513 (1996) Christopher J. MARSHALL, Appellant-Defendant, v. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Recreational Products Insurance Division, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 91A02-9510-CV-652. Court of Appeals of Indiana. November 26, 1996. Rehearing Denied January 16, 1997. David J. Theising, Joseph F. Pieters, Christopher & Taylor, I

KEITH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jose Sanie (“Sanie”) seeks this Court’s review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, we DISMISS the petition for review, in part, and DENY it, in part, and AFFIRM the BIA’s decision. I.

CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This wage-and-hour class action was filed by Plaintiff Bill Taylor against Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc. (together, "Defendants") in Santa Barbara Superior Court in 2012. (Dkt. 1-3 ["FAC"].) Most of the litigation proceeded in state court and, on March 4, 2016, the state court g

KEITH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Jose Sanie (“Sanie”) seeks this Court’s review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. For the following reasons, we DISMISS the petition for review, in part, and DENY it, in part, and AFFIRM the BIA’s decision. I.

ORDER We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to decide the certified question set forth in Part II of this Order. See Cal. R. Ct. 8.548. The answer to this question of California law would be dispositive of the appeal before üs, and no clear controlling California precedent exists. Id. Moreover, because the qu

518 F.3d 965 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose E. CASTELLANOS, also known as Jose Navarrete, also known as Pescado, also known as Fish, also known as Lujan Guillermo, Appellant. No. 07-1535. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: November 13, 2007. Filed: March 12, 2008. *966