Cases

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed June 7, 2021 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00022-CV AMANDA L. EMBRY, Appellant V. JOSE S. MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Order entered April 6, 2020 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00022-CV AMANDA L. EMBRY, Appellant V. JOSE S. MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS MINERVA NAJERA, § No. 08-17-00011-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. §

OPINION Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice This appeal arises from the State’s indictment alleging Appellant Jose Isabel Martinez-Hernandez committed aggravated sexual assault of an elderly individual and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit a felony therein. The jury found Martinez-Hernandez guilty of both offenses and assessed punishment a

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Jose Martinez challenges the reinstatement of an order of removal by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He contends that the original order of deportation must be rescinded as unconstitutional and, alternatively, that it cannot be reinstated because he legally reentered the United States. B

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Jose Antonio Sarabia-Martinez pleaded guilty to the federal offense of illegally reentering the United States after having been removed. His sentence was enhanced pursuant to guideline § 2L1.2 based on a previous “drug trafficking offense” conviction. The district'court based the enhancement solely on information in a pre-sentencing report (“PSR”). Sarabi

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: ■Jose Gabriel Garcia-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2014) for reentering t

OPINION OF THE COURT Chief Judge Lippman. The issue presented by this appeal is whether defendant’s due process rights were violated when the hearing court relied, in part, upon grand jury minutes that were not disclosed to the defense in reaching defendant’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level dete

ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judge. Fausto Franco-Lopez (the “Employee”) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision denying him compensation because it lacked jurisdiction over his claim. The Employee raises three points on appeal. First, the Employee argues that the Commission erred in not providing basic findings of fact for its decision becaus

BLACK, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jose Felix Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order denying his application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Specifically, he challenges the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to satisfy § 1229b(b)(l)(D)’s “exceptional

MANION, Circuit Judge. Jose Miguel Palma-Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal. Because the IJ neither erred in holding that Palma-Martinez was ineligible for a waiver nor abused his discretion in denying Palma-Martinez a continuance, we deny the petition.

Dismissed.

OPINION THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR. and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined. The grand jury of Smith County indicted Defendant, Jose Amates Martinez, for the Class A felony offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell

OPINION EVELYN V. KEYES, Justice. A jury convicted appellant, Jose Marvin Martines, of the offenses of sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child and *235 assessed punishment at eight years’ confinement and ten years’ confinement, respectively.

BENTON, Circuit Judge. Jose David Constanza-Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying him withholding of removal. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition. I. Constanza-Martinez, a former special forces member of the El Salvador military, unlawful

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Alfredo Martinez-Guillen 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). Martinez-Guillen has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s bri

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Cruz-Martinez 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). Cruz-Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant p

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Miller, J.), entered December 13, 2010, as granted the motion of the defendants Griselda Martinez and Mia Li Martinez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from,

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Martinez-Soto 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). Martinez-Soto has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rel

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Ines Martinez-Vargas 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Vargas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re