Cases

Opinion issued November 30, 2023 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00611-CV ——————————— MELLON REAL ESTATE, INC., Appellant V. MARTIN GOMEZ, Appellee

NO. 12-02-00253-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS MARTIN GOMEZ ARROYO,§ APPEAL FROM THE 114TH <

Case: 16-14104 Date Filed: 07/25/2016 Page: 1 of 10 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-14104-J ________________________ IN RE: EMILIO GOMEZ,

643 F.3d 463 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rigoberto GOMEZ-GOMEZ, aka Aleo Gomez, aka Felix A. Mercado Baez, aka Jhony Ventura, aka Chapa, aka Choppa, Defendant-Appellant. *464 In re Rigoberto Gomez-Gomez, aka Aleo Gomez, aka Felix A. Mercado Baez, aka Jhony Ventura, aka Chapa, aka Choppa, Petitioner. Nos. 10-3283, 10-4264. United Stat

705 S.E.2d 421 (2011) STATE of North Carolina v. Luis Castellanos GOMEZ, Defendant. No. COA10-151. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. February 15, 2011. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Brian R. Berman, for the State. Mills & Economos, L.L.P., by Larry C. Economos, Greenville, for defendant-appellant. STROUD, Judg

MEMORANDUM ** Martin Gomez appeals his conviction by guilty plea and sentence for being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). Gomez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and a motion to withdraw on the ground that counsel faded to discover any arguable issues on appeal. Our

MEMORANDUM** Martin Gomez-Montez appeals his guilty plea conviction for being “found in” the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gomez-Montez argues that his plea hearing did not satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1) because the district court used the term “reentry,” instead of “found in,” to descri

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Mendoza-Gomez.has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 *406S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Mendoza-Gomez has

SEYMOUR, Chief Judge. Gaston Gomez sued his former employer, Martin Marietta Corporation (MMC), alleging breach of contract and discrimination on the basis of age, race, and national origin. Mr. Gomez’ contract and age discrimination claims were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Mr. Gomez on the contract claim and for MMC on the age discrimination claim. The district court held for MMC on the race and national

Judgment affirmed and petition denied by unpublished opinion per Penoyar, C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and Quinn-Brintnall, JJ.

576 N.W.2d 185 (1998) 254 Neb. 282 Anita BECHTOLD and Timothy L. Savage and Karen M. Savage, husband and wife, Appellees, v. Martin GOMEZ, Appellant. No. S-96-775. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 27, 1998. *187 Catherine Mahern, of Creighton Legal Clinic, Omaha, for appellant. Herbert J. Elworth, o

MEMORANDUM OPINION Marvin Isgur, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Humberto Saenz, Jr. and Estrella Ventures, LLC’s actions constitute common law fraud. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs Jose Maria Gomez and JMG JMG Ventures, LLC suffered actual damages in the amount of $330,000. The Court awards Plaintiffs exemplary damages in the amount of $82,500. The $412,500 a

560 F.3d 354 (2009) Marlon Jesus GOMEZ-PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-60938. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 18, 2009. *356 Martin Avila Robles, Law Offices of Martin R. Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner. Kathryn M. McKinney, Thomas Ward

597 S.E.2d 509 (2004) 266 Ga.App. 423 The STATE v. GOMEZ. No. A03A2347. Court of Appeals of Georgia. March 22, 2004. *510 Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor-General, Gary S. Vey, Assistant Solicitor-General, for appellant. Martin M. del Mazo, Atlanta, for appellee. ELLINGTON, Judge. In F

(2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Bernardo GOMEZ-INFANTE, Defendant. No. CR 07-50104 TUC DCB (JCG). United States District Court, D. Arizona. February 15, 2008. ORDER DAVID C. BURY, District Judge. After a full and independent review of the record, including the Defendant's objections, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommenda

MEMORANDUM** Celia Onofre-Gomez and Juan RiveraGarduno, wife and husband and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo purely legal questions including due proce

ORDER On May 31, 2017, this court held in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649, 661 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) that before placing a defendant in shackles, the district court must “make an individualized decision that a compelling government purpose would be served and that shackles are the least restrictive means for maintaining security and order.” About two

580 N.W.2d 523 (1998) 254 Neb. 836 Martin GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and his minor children, Kassandra B. and Nicholas B., Appellant, v. Karen M. SAVAGE and Timothy L. Savage, Appellees, and Anita A. Bechtold, Intervenor-Appellee. No. S-97-333. Supreme Court of Nebraska. June 26, 1998. *527 Peter T. H

604 S.E.2d 532 (2004) 269 Ga. App. 576 GOMEZ et al. v. JULIAN LeCRAW & COMPANY et al. No. A04A0987. Court of Appeals of Georgia. July 21, 2004. Reconsideration Denied September 14, 2004. Certiorari Denied January 10, 2005. *533 Goico & Bolet, Albert J. Bolet, III,

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Appellants, quondam employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, sued their erstwhile agency head, the Ombudsman, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). 1 They complained that their ouster was politically motivated and hence infracted their constitutional rights. See generally Vazquez Rios v. He