Cases

Judge WOLLENBERG. Edwin Montal Medina was ordered into residential treatment while he awaited the adjudication of a petition to revoke his probation. Medina's probation was ultimately revoked, but the court released him back to probation without imposing a sentence of imprisonment. The question presented in this appeal is whether Medina was later entitled to seek credit for the time he

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. *778 A federal grand jury indicted Delano Medina on October 7, 2014. He appeared for the first time in federal court 27 months later on January 11, 2017. During that time, Mr. Medina was transferred between various state authorities in three different states on at le

PER CURIAM: Leticia Medina appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social .Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She challenges the decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) on several grounds. First, she contends that the ALJ erred in failing to find that all of her impairments were severe. Second, she argues that the ALJ did not adequately explain why he gave lit

191 P.3d 708 (2008) 221 Or. App. 614 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Victor MERIDA-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant. C040970CR; A128340. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted January 31, 2008. Decided August 13, 2008. *709 Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Ramirez-Medina appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ramirez-Medina contends that the district court erred at sentencing by improperly relying upon factors not included in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Ramirez-Medina appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ramirez-Medina contends that the district court erred at sentencing by improperly relying upon factors not included in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that the

MEMORANDUM** John Clayderman Medina (“Medina”) pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Medina appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a weapon discovered during a Terry search of Medina and his backpack. Because Medina concedes that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry

247 P.3d 1152 (2010) 2011-NMCA-019 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 29,372. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. November 30, 2010. Certiorari Denied, January 25, 2011, No. 32,785. *1153 Gary K. King, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Jacquel

Per Curiam. *25 *313 {¶ 1} To be eligible to serve as a judge on a court of common pleas, a person must satisfy certain requirements, among them that he or she "has, for a

KLEIN, J. Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault with an automobile. We reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for continuance. The incident giving rise to the charges occurred in a mobile home park in which there had been prior confrontations between drivers and teenagers riding bicycles. The park had been constructed as an adult comm

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supre

Filed 3/19/19 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, B286117 Plaintiff and Respondent, (L.A. Super. Ct. No. BA447145) v. OSCAR MEDINA et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. D

Filed 4/16/19 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, B286117 Plaintiff and Respondent, (L.A. Super. Ct. No. BA447145) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION OSCAR MEDINA et al., AND D

184 F.Supp.2d 805 (2001) Richard MEDINA, Angelo Machuca, Jr., David Gemeinhart, Xavier Herrera, John Nava, Kevin Harretos, Fard Elliot, Nicholas Kokot and Miguel Santos, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA, Robert Pastrick, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor, and Frank Alcala, individually and in his official capacity as Chief, Defendants. No. 2:00CV0244AS. United States Di

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-18-00224-CR CLEMENTE MEDINA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016-1332-C1

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ABEL LACHICA, § No. 08-21-00022-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § 388th Judicial District Court IRASEMA MEDINA, § of

NOTICE The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts: 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Fax: (907) 264-0878 E-mail: corrections @ akcourts.us IN THE CO

[Cite as Morley v. Medina Cty. Sheriff, 2022-Ohio-3469.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) ALEXANDER D. MORLEY C.A. No. 21CA0001-M Appellant v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

DAVIS, Judge. *218 In this appeal, we consider whether the plaintiff's complaint stated valid claims for relief both under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina co