Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Rodrigues v. United States”
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
MEMORANDUM & ORDER HAGOPIAN, United States Magistrate Judge. The instant matter has been referred for the conduct of all proceedings, including trial and entry of judgment with direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Before the Court is the Plaintiffs claim for a refund of a $3,000.00 penalty, assessed by the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.
United States v. Rodriguespublic domain
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. A Massachusetts jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on a multiple count indictment charging Martinho Rodrigues with conspiring with 29 others to distribute assorted drugs in several Boston area neighborhoods. Rather than face a repeat trial, Rodrigues opted to plead guilty to Count One, conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
David Michael Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
5 F.3d 539NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David Michael RODRIGUES, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-15282. United Sta
United States v. Rodriguespublic domain
678 F.3d 693 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Wayne RODRIGUES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 11-15530. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 15, 2012. Filed March 27, 2012. *694 Eric A. Seitz, Honolulu, HI, for the defendant-appellant. Lawrence
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Rodriguespublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-appellant Goncalo Rodrigues, a removed alien, appeals from a judgment of conviction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (b)(2), for illegally reentering the United States after having previously committed an aggravated felony. The District Court sentenced him principally to a thirteen-month term of imprisonment pursuant to a downward departure. On appeal, Rodrigues contends that the District Court erred by denyi
Rodrigues v. Massachusettspublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.
United States v. Rodriguespublic domain
MEMORANDUM * A jury found Gary Rodrigues, the former Hawaii State Director for the United Public Workers union, guilty of embezzling money from the union1 and accepting kickbacks in connection with an employee welfare benefit plan.2 The jury also found Rodrigues and his daughter Robin Sabatini guilty of mail fraud,3 heal
Rodrigues v. Davispublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
United States v. Rodrigues-Sedanopublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Noel Rodrigues-Sedano appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Rodrigues-Sedano has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for rel
Rodrigues v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Rodrigues v. Attorney General of the United Statespublic domain
*486OPINION PER CURIAM. Ian Boyd Rodrigues is a native and citizen of Jamaica who was convicted, on October 29, 2002, for trafficking in marijuana in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2925.03. The Government charged Rodrigues as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony and a controlled substance violation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §
Rodrigues v. Attorney General of the United Statespublic domain
OPINION PER CURIAM. Petitioner Ian B. Rodrigues1 (a/k/a Michael Smith) petitions for review of a decision rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on October 8, 2009. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily grant the petition for review. I. Background On August 11, 2009, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) rendered a
Rodrigues v. Attorney General of the United Statespublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Martinho Tavares Rodrigues seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Rodrigues’s challenge to the BIA’s decision is based on a former version of 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), under which Rodrigues claims to have automatically derived United States citizenshi
United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguespublic domain
PER CURIAM.* Julio Cesar Gonzalez-Rodrigues appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty *960plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gonzalez-Rodrigues contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conv
Rodrigues v. Attorney General of the United Statespublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Martinho Tavares Rodrigues seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Rodrigues’s challenge to the BIA’s decision is based on a former version of 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), under which Rodrigues claims to have automatically derived United States citizenshi
Rodrigues v. Attorney General of the United Statespublic domain
OPINION PER CURIAM. Petitioner Ian B. Rodrigues1 (a/k/a Michael Smith) petitions for review of a decision rendered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on October 8, 2009. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily grant the petition for review. I. Background On August 11, 2009, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) rendered a