Cases

11TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND, TEXAS JUDGMENT Norman L. Agnew, * From the 32nd District Court of Mitchell County, Trial Court No. 17310. Vs. No. 11-19-00249-CV * August 5, 2021 Linda Gonzales, et al., * Me

Opinion filed August 5, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-19-00249-CV __________ NORMAN L. AGNEW, Appellant V. LINDA GONZALES, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 32nd District Court Mitch

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 1, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D17-1842 Lower Tribunal No. 15-11154 ________________ Elisabeth Gonzalez-Carone,

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00517-CV Peter William Gonzalez, Appellant v. Linda Anne Tippit, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 96-01185, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING OPINION

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00517-CV Peter William Gonzalez, Appellant</

302 B.R. 687 (2003) In re Linda GONZALEZ, Debtor. No. SA 02-13233 JR. United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California. December 16, 2003. *688 *689 *690 Bradford Calvin, Law Offices of Bradford Calvin, Santa Ana, CA, for Debtor. MEMORANDUM OPINION</

Dismissed.

KLINGENSMITH, J. Appellants, Carmen Hernandez and Carmen Feliz, were plaintiffs in a lawsuit resulting from an automobile, accident. In that accident, their car was rear-ended by defendant Alexis Gonzalez who was driving a car owned by co-defendant Linda Gonzalez. Both Hernandez and Feliz were taken to the hospital from the scene of the accident by ambulance for evaluation. In the months thereafter, both sought medical tre

Ruling on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Stefan R. Underhill, United States District Judge This case arises out of a police “sting” operation conducted by members of the Waterbury Police Department that resulted in a lengthy high-speed chase and ultimately the arrest of Gabriel Gonzalez. Gonzalez alleges that the defendant police officers used excessive force in the course of taking him into custody

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Farrell v. Phillips, 414 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Reeves v. State, 957 So.2d 625 (Fla.2007).

MEMORANDUM ** Felix Luna-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his motion to reopen as untimely. In the underlying decision, an Immigration Judge denied Luna-Gonzalez’s application for cancellation of removal after finding that he was statutorily barred from demonstrating the requisite good moral character and had also

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appellant Cruz Roberto Ramos-González (“Ramos”) was tried a second time on a drug trafficking charge after this court concluded that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation had been violated at his first trial. See United States v. Ramos-González, 664 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2011). Ramos was again convicted of possessing more than 500 gram

OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Reyes Abigail Linares-Gon-zales (“Linares”) and Maribel Preciado (“Preciado”) challenge the denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. The immigration judges (“IJ”) denied then-applications, and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed, finding, among other things, that they were ineli

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise from a multi-count indictment alleging that the four appellants — Sonia Flores-Rivera (“Sonia”), Sandra Flores-Rivera '(“Sandra”), Carlos Omar Bermúdez-Torres (“Omar”), Cruz Roberto Ramos-González (“Ramos”) — and their forty-three co-defendants 1 participated in a far

MEMORANDUM ** Rocío Cordero Gonzalez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Ap*658peals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show ex

167 S.W.3d 536 (2005) Peter William GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. Linda Anne TIPPIT, Appellee. No. 03-03-00517-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin. June 10, 2005. *538 William H. Alberts, Christopher M. Benjamin, McLeroy, Alberts & Benjamin, P.C., Austin, for appellant. Daryl Gail Weinman, Morehart and Weinman, Austin, for

OPINION & ORDER EMILY C. HEWITT, Chief Judge. Before the court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the “Driving Time” Issue, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and Request for Oral Argument (plaintiffs’ Motion or Pis.’ Mot.), filed July 31, 2008 and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

MEMORANDUM ** Armando Gonzalez — Garcia, a native of Mexico and lawful permanent resident, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. The IJ concluded that Gonzalez-Garcia engaged in alien smuggli

MEMORANDUM * Juan R. Gonzalez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting constitutional defects in his general court-martial conviction for premeditated murder in 1988. Because the military appellate courts, both the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review and the Court of Military Appeals, gave full and fair consideration to Gonzalez’