Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Luis Navarro-Bravo appeals the 63-month sentence imposed following his jury trial conviction for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Navarro-Bravo contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C.

Navarro v Damac Realty, LLC (2022 NY Slip Op 01169) Navarro v Damac Realty, LLC 2022 NY Slip Op 01169 Decided on February 23, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau p

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge. Defendants Jose De Los Santos Himitola, Walber Meza Navarro, Pedro Guerrero Grueso, and Alfonso Gonzalez (“De Los Santos, et al.”) appeal from a sua sponte order by the district judge declaring them parole ineligible. The three issues now before us are as follows: first, whether the no-parole provisions of the 1986 amendments

Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 19-40077 FILED

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 27, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D17-2575 Lower Tribunal No. 10-53928 ________________ Rene Pazmino and Grace Pazmino,

MEMORANDUM** Augustin Rodríguez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissing as untimely his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his application for suspension of deportation. We review de novo whether the BIA had jurisdiction over an untimely appeal. Da Cruz v. INS, 4 F.3d 721, 722 (9th Cir.1993

731 F.Supp.2d 202 (2010) Angel LUIS SANTIAGO, Plaintiff v. Iris M. SANTIAGO, Defendant. No. Civil 09-2111(JA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. August 9, 2010. *203 Gino Negretti-Lavergne, Miguez & Negretti Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Michelle Pirallo-Di Cristina, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.<

Botsford, J. Following a bench trial, the three defendants — Nelson Gonzalez, Jonathan S. Maldonado, and Mariano L. Gomez — were convicted of possessing heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a), and violating the controlled substance law within one hundred feet of a park or playground, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32J. They were acquitted of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of G. L. c. 94C,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALBERTO GALVIS MUJICA, on No. 10-55515 behalf of himself and as representative of the Estates of D.C. No. Tereza Mujica Hernan, Edilma Leal 2:03-cv-02860- Pacheco and Johanny Hernandez GW-JWJ Becerra; MARIO GALVIS GELVEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and as heir of the decedents Tereza Mujica Hernandez, Edilma Leal Pacheco and Johanny Hernand

739 F.Supp.2d 84 (2010) Milagros AYALA-GONZALEZ, et al, Plaintiffs, v. Pedro A. TOLEDO-DAVILA, et al, Defendants. Civil No. 06-1650(DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 9, 2010. *85 Eileen J. Barresi-Ramos, Barresi Law Office, Trujillo Alto, PR, Erick Morales-Perez, Erick Morales Law Office, Carolina, PR,

882 F.2d 546 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Jose CORPUS, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Marcos SEGUNDO-JUVINAO, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Luis GONZALEZ, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Orlando TORO, Defendant, Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Eliezer VALDERIANQUES, Defendant, Appellant.

Escribano Medina, Juez Ponente TEXTO COMPLETO DE LA SENTENCIA Mediante la comparecencia del Procurador General, el Pueblo de Puerto Rico, en adelante el peticionario, nos solicita la revocación de la resolución emitida el 27 de marzo de 2003 por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Utuado (Hon. Susana C. Serrano Montesi, J.), en adelante el Tribunal. Al amparo de la Regla 64(n) de las de Proc

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. This opinion, the second in a series of three, is a companion to our decision in Bonilla v. Volvo Car Corporation, No. 97-1135, 150 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.1998), decided this day (“Volvo ”). That decision sets forth a description of the litigation, including the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the course of proceedings

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs-appellants Luis A. Lugo, his wife, and their conjugal partnership appeal from the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees on appellants’ political discrimination claims. We review the district court’s decision de novo, see ATC Realty, LLC v. Town of Kingston, 303 F.3d 91, 94 (1st Cir.2002), but find no error. Appellant Lugo was the Superv

OPINION ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying motions to dismiss claims under Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. These statutes govern suits filed against certain licensed professionals, including engineers and their firms. See Tex.Civ.Prao.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON REHEARING The statute, which governs both negotiated and arbitrated agreements, says that an agreement adopted by the parties “shall be submitted for approval to the State commission. A State commission to which an agreement is submitted shall approve or reject the agreement.” 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1) (2000). Here, the arbitrator’s order was adopted and the resulting interconnection agreement was submitted

USCA1 Opinion United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 97-1140 LUIS BONILLA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. TREBOL MOTORS CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. __________

CAFFREY, Senior District Judge. This is a consolidated appeal on behalf of nine defendants who were the captain and crew of the Panamanian-registered vessel COLOSO II. After a two-day jury trial, the defendants were found guilty of aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana, with an intent to distribute it, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 46 U.S.C.App. § 1903(a) (recodifying 21 U.S.C. § 955a).1

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. This opinion is a companion to two others issued today, growing out of the same district court ease. In No. 97-1135, we are reversing the principal judgment against Volvo. In Nos. 97-1140 and 97-1143, the principal judgment against Trebol and the Gonzalez defendants is being vacated and the matter-remanded for farther proceedings as to damages, subject to