Cases

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Carlos Olivo Ramirez seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Ramirez’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collatera

*917 Opinion RAMIREZ, P. J. —Dirck Van Audenhove sued Robert D. Perry for malicious prosecution, alleging that Perry contacted the police and falsely accused him of stalking, and that the police arrested him, but the district attorney’s office ultimately declined to prosecute. The tri

OPINION REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Ramirez v. McCravy, 4 So.3d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), based on express and direct conflict with Hankey v. Yarian, 755 So.2d 93 (Fla.2000), and Sullivan v. State, 913 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. According

13 So.3d 1112 (2009) Roosevelt Rudy PERRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 3D09-1458. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 22, 2009. Roosevelt Rudy Perry, in proper person. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee. Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and COPE and WELLS, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Flores v.

MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal. A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the minor petitioners have presented no evidence that they have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See Molina-Es

187 P.3d 1261 (2008) STATE of Idaho v. Jesus RAMIREZ. No. 32387. Court of Appeals of Idaho. June 11, 2008. *1262 Fred R. Palmer, Sandpoint, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Rebekah A. Cudé, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Rebekah A. Cudé argued. GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge.

OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the scope of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), which prevents impeachment of a defendant with his post-Miranda silence. Defendantr-Appellant Jose Angel Ramirez-Estrada was convicted after a jury trial

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Alma Ramirez (“Ramirez”) appeals the district court’s granting of Defendant-Appellee Alberto Gonzales’s 1 motion for summary judgment on Ramirez’s race/national origin discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because no genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Ramirez’s claims

MEMORANDUM ** Bonifacio Martinez Ramirez, his wife and son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal questions and constitutional issues de novo. See Vasquez

MEMORANDUM ** Francisco Quezada-Ramirez filed petitions for judicial review of three Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions. We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petitions. We deny Quezada-Ramirez’s petition for review of BIA’s dismissal of his appeal because he presented no arguments on the matter in his briefs to this court. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th

MEMORANDUM*** Elvia Marina Ramirez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen proceedings after she was ordered deported in absentia. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997), we ha

MEMORANDUM ** Raul Ramirez-Campos appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (deported alien found in the United States). We affirm. This court reviews a district court’s sentencing decisions for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). To determine whether a s

MEMORANDUM** Leticia Ayar-Ramirez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s decision pursuant to the streamlining regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7). Ayar-Ramirez does not challenge the merits of the immigration judge’s decision, but merely asserts the streamlining regulation contravenes the Attorney General’s statutory authority and violates due

2023 IL App (1st) 221227 SIXTH DIVISION December 29, 2023 No. 1-22-1227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

PER CURIAM. Bank of America, N.A. (“Appellant”) appeals an order denying its motion to file an amended complaint in a foreclosure action against Amy Perry, David Brand Pleat, et al. (“Appellees”), and raises two issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Appellant argues that the trial court reversibly erred by denying its motion to file an amended complaint. We ag

101 F.Supp.2d 1354 (2000) Pauline I. PERRY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 00-4021-RDR. United States District Court, D. Kansas. June 23, 2000. *1355 Eugene B. Ralston, Ralston & Pope, L.L.P., Topeka, KS, for Pauline I. Perry, plaintiffs. D. Brad Bailey, Mary K. Ramirez, Office of United States

[Cite as State v. Ramirez, 2019-Ohio-3050.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-12-233 : OPINION - vs -

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1455 ___________________________ Tremonti Perry Plaintiff - Appellant v. Anne L. Precythe; Ian Wallace, Warden, Southeast Missouri Correctional Center; Corizon LLC; Glen

People v Perry (2020 NY Slip Op 05532) People v Perry 2020 NY Slip Op 05532 Decided on October 7, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 4