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 “Smith v. Godinez”
United States v. Ramon Gomez Godinezpublic domain
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Ramon Gomez Godinez pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a public playground. The district court 1 sentenced him within the advisory guideline range to 252 months. On appeal Gomez
United States v. Godinez-Santospublic domain
PER CURIAM. Jorge Alberto Godinez-Santos appeals his fifty-seven-month sentence for being found unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Godinez-Santos argues that the district court violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as set out in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi
State v. Godinezpublic domain
Office of the Director New Mexico 08:19:38 2022.06.13 Compilation '00'06- Commission IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2022-NMCA-029 Filing Date: December 1, 2021 No. A-1-CA-38063 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee
Harms v. Godinezpublic domain
829 F.Supp. 259 (1993) Michael HARMS, Plaintiff, v. Salvador GODINEZ, Theopolis Smith, Candis Crook, and Jane Doe, Defendants. No. 92 C 3168. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. July 29, 1993. *260 Michael Harms, pro se. Kathy D. Twine, Cynthia Y. Brim, Cara LeFevour Smith, Illinois Atty. General's Office, Ch
Housley v. Godinezpublic domain
4 Cal.App.4th 737 (1992) 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 111 JERALD B. HOUSLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANIEL A. GODINEZ et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. F014170. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. March 13, 1992. *739 COUNSEL Ralph C. Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aron &a;
Pennymac Corp. v. Godinez.public domain
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 08-OCT-2020 07:47 AM IN THE SUPREME
United States v. Mario Gonzalez-Godinezpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50031 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-03506- v. BGS-DMS-1 MARIO GONZALEZ-GODINEZ, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from t
United States v. Ernesto Godinezpublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19‐3425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. ERNESTO GODINEZ, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Holmes v. Godinezpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge Plaintiffs, eleven deaf or hard of hearing prisoners, brought this proposed class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Defendant Salvador A. Godinez, the Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC” or the “Department”). Plaintiffs allege that IDOC has denied them hearing accommodat
Evans v. Godinezpublic domain
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Evans v. Godinez, 2014 IL App (4th) 130686 Appellate Court WILLIAM EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.A. GODINEZ, KEITH Caption ANGLIN, and LAMAR COLEMAN, Defendants-Appellees. District & No. Fourth District Docket No. 4-13-0686 Rule 23 Order filed June 18, 2014 Rule 23 Order with
Anthony Dixon v. Salvador A. Godinez, Theopolis Smith, Thomas P. Roth & Dennis Jenningspublic domain
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Anthony Dixon, a state prisoner, sued several officials at Stateville Correctional Center, claiming that the conditions of his confinement in the prison’s protective custody wing violated the Eighth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dixon claimed that his cell became so cold each winter that ice formed on the walls and he could see his breath, while inadequate v
James Owens v. Salvador Godinezpublic domain
PER CURIAM. James Owens, an Illinois state prisoner, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *436 because he believes that nearly two dozen prison employees deliberately ignored his medical needs and retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits. He is primarily dissatisfied with the ad
Godinez v. Statepublic domain
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blount v. State, 67 So.2d 209 (Fla.1953); Gardner v. State, 54 So.2d 31 (Fla.1951); Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43 (1927); Delagado v. State, 361 So.2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McLaughlin v. State, 286 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Hoban v. Godinezpublic domain
ORDER Joseph Hoban, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that Hoban states a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a claim of failure to protect him from a substantial risk of serious injury, and a claim of retaliation. *576Thus, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Joseph Sorrentino v. Salvador Godinezpublic domain
WOOD, Chief Judge. Joseph Sorrentino and Labron C. Neal are inmates at Illinois’s Stateville Correctional Center. They purchased several items from Stateville’s commissary, but the prison later forbade inmates to possess those items in their cells. Sorrentino and Neal were among those whose property was removed, as the new rule required. They responded by filing a proposed class
Godinez v. Schwarzeneggerpublic domain
*77Opinion KLEIN, P. J. Defendants and appellants State of California, the State Allocation Board (Board) and its member Ron Joseph, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and its executive officer, Luisa M. Park, Tom Campbell as Director of Finance, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor, Philip Angelides as State Treasurer and Steve Westly as State Co
State v. Godinezpublic domain
205 N.W.2d 644 (1973) 190 Neb. 1 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Jessie GODINEZ, Appellant. No. 38537. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 30, 1973. Bertrand V. Tibbels, Scottsbluff, for appellant. Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Betsy G. Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee. Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOS
JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants appeal from their jury convictions for falsely classifying imported goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 541 and making false statements in connection with imported goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For the reasons stated below, we affirm these convictions. FACTS Appellant Godinez
Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackeypublic domain
815 N.E.2d 822 (2004) 352 Ill. App.3d 87 287 Ill.Dec. 178 Julio GODINEZ and Carlos Godinez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. June E. SULLIVAN-LACKEY, Defendant-Appellant (The City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, Defendant-Appellant). No. 1-02-2101. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. August 20, 2004.
State v. Angie Godinezpublic domain
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00446-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Angie Godinez, Appellee