Cases

326 B.R. 127 (2005) In re James NIKITAS, Debtor. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., Plaintiff, v. James Nikitas, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 04 B 18560, Adversary No. 04 A 3430. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 6, 2005. *128 James Nikitas, pro se. Lora E. Minichillo, Christopher R. Parker,

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ELAINE DAMIANAKIS, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of Nikitas ) Damianakis, )

303 F.3d 256 Nikitas AMORGIANOS and Donna Amorgianos, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, d/b/a Amtrak, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee,Romano Enterprises, Romano Enterprises of New York, Inc., Ahern Painting, Ahern Painting Contractors Inc., and Dynamic Painting, Dynamic Painting Corporation, Third-Party-Defendants. Docket No. 01-7508. United State

Teahan, J. This matter comes before us on plaintiffs appeal from an adverse finding arising out of a fall on a snow and ice covered sidewalk on February 6, 1989 in Leominster. The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by the Court's denial of her requests for rulings of law numbers 1,5 and 6 as well as three independent findings of the Court.2 Her claim to a review of facts found is unsupported by Dist./M

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; James Alderman, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Judgments and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of these appeals to either party, and a new trial granted, with leave to plaintiff to move to amend the complaint, if so advised, within 20 days after entry and service of a copy or the order herein. Memorandum: This action was brought in equity to restrain defendant from trespassing on plaintiff’s land and from continuing erection of a building thereon. Pending trial defendant com

Appeal by plaintiff in an automobile negligence action from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, entered upon a jury verdict of no cause of action. In the early afternoon of May 12, 1960 a collision occurred between a motor vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff and one owned by the corporate defendant and operated by its employee, defendant Briscoe, both northbound on Routes 4 and 40, a three-lane State highway in the Town of East Greenbush

Motions of respondent and appellant returnable October 16, 1962 are held and will be heard at the time of the argument of the appeal now pending in this court. If defendant is so advised an additional notice of appeal from the judgment entered September 27, 1962 as modified by order dated October 5, 1962 may be served and filed so that there may be no possible question that all issues are before us on the appeal. Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, McClusky

The Official Referee before whom the action was tried having died, and the attorneys having stipulated to amendment of the order as hereinafter provided, it is ordered that the order entered herein on October 19,1961, is amended by substituting the provision: “ Matter remitted to trial term of the Supreme Court for the purpose of making a decision in conformity with See. 440 of the Civil Practice Act on the record of the trial before the Official Referee ”,

Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Mr. Justice Dever delivered the opinion of the court.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marcus Nikita Jennings appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the d

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nikita L. Saunders appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States

Barnes, Presiding Judge. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Nikita Tayaneka Winn appeals from his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, trafficking in illegal drugs (heroin), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, Winn contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, the trial court erred in denying h

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nikita L. Saunders appeals the district court’s order denying her 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States

Nikita V. Mackey, of Charlotte, North Carolina, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated September 28, 2006, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue that branch of the plaintiffs’ prior motion which was for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Kyonk Parfomak, upon his failure to appear or answer,

Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.

OPINION GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Defendant Nikita Griffin pleaded guilty to conspiring to submit false income tax returns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. He appealed his twelve-month sentence, and we remanded for resentencing because the district court made insufficient factual findings to support its imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstructing

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION To the Appellate Division, Superior Court: A petition for certification of the judgment in A-000538-14 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same; It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.