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 “United States v. Arango-Perez”
United States v. Concepcionpublic domain
825 F.Supp. 19 (1993) UNITED STATES of America v. Martha CONCEPCION, a/k/a Martha Martinez, a/k/a Martha Morales, a/k/a Julianna Sanchez, a/k/a Sonia Serrano, a/k/a Gladys Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Ana MORILLO, a/k/a Rossi Colon, a/k/a Marta Fernandez, a/k/a Luz Lopez, a/k/a Gloria Velez, a/k/a Jeanette Ruiz, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Jane ARENDELL, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, a/k/a Annette Rive
United States v. Concepcionpublic domain
808 F.Supp. 166 (1992) UNITED STATES of America v. Martha CONCEPCION, a/k/a Martha Martinez, a/k/a Martha Morales, a/k/a Julianna Sanchez, a/k/a Sonia Serrano, a/k/a Gladys Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Virginia FIGUEROA, a/k/a Patris Gordon, a/k/a Lillian Navarro, a/k/a Juana Martinez, a/k/a Rita Pagan, a/k/a Mary Puig, a/k/a Rosa Rivera, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Theresa Amelia ROMAN, a/k/a
United States v. Octavio Arango-Echeberry, United States of America v. Ruben Dario Sanchez-Echeverripublic domain
LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants Ruben Dario Sanchez-Echeverri and Octavio Arango-Eche-berry appeal from convictions in the District of Puerto Rico for (1) possession with intent to distribute approximately three thousand grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) importing the cocaine into the customs territory of the United States, in vio
United States v. Peterspublic domain
751 F.Supp.2d 404 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Mark Delevante PETERS, Defendant. No. 09-cr-0581 (ENV). United States District Court, E.D. New York. October 28, 2010. *405 Thomas M. Sullivan, United States Attorney's Office, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff. Lisa Hoyes, Federal Defenders of New York, Bro
United States v. Acostapublic domain
807 F.Supp.2d 1154 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, v. Juan Manuel ACOSTA, Martin Arreola-Romero, Angel Luis Ayala, Otha Barnes, Gerald Edward Durrance, Martina Casas Flores, Ramiro Hernandez-Duque, Jorge Lucatero-Torres, Belisario Gil Mendoza, Juan Manuel Mendoza, Raphael Pedroza Perez, Obiel Pineda-Pardo, Alfonso Rios, Jr., Jose Cesar Almeida, Jorge Alejandro Anaya-Medina, Luis Manuel Haces-Delgado, Alejandro De La Cruz-Plancarte, Javier De La
United States v. Eckhartpublic domain
569 F.3d 1263 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David A. ECKHART, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Perez Cardenas, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 07-4126, 07-4022. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. June 29, 2009. *1266 Brett Tolman, United States
United States v. Riverapublic domain
465 F.Supp.2d 89 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff(s) v. Eduardo Cruz RIVERA, Defendant(s). Criminal No. 06-027 (JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 31, 2006. *91 Federico R. Ducoudray-Acevedo, Ducoudray Acevedo & Associates, Jorge L. Armenteros-Chervoni, Julio A. Gonzalez-Nieves, San Juan, PR
United States v. Taylorpublic domain
496 F.Supp.2d 852 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald TAYLOR, et al., Defendants. No. 3:04cr130. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. April 27, 2006. *853 Robert A. Knief, Pamela M. Stanek, United States Attorney's Office, Dayton, OH, for Plaintiff. Ben M. Swift, Swift & Bursey,
United States v. Davispublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT GIBSON, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on several pre-trial motions filed by three of the Defendants in this matter. The Court will review each of these in turn, concluding with the various motions to suppress evidence. MOTION OF WAYNE A. VANCE Motion to Produce Evidence Which the Government Int
United States v. Copelandpublic domain
369 F.Supp.2d 275 (2005) UNITED STATES of America, v. Richard COPELAND, Defendant. No. 01-CR-1453. United States District Court, E.D. New York. May 4, 2005. *276 *277 Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY By Scott Dunn, for the Government. Michael Padden, Federal Def
United States v. Fantauzzipublic domain
260 F.Supp.2d 561 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, v. Benedetto FANTAUZZI, Defendant. No. CR-02-322 (ADS). United States District Court, E.D. New York. May 8, 2003. *562 Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney Eastern District Of New York, Islip, NY, by James E. Tatum, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney. Reid, Rodri
United States v. Gagnonpublic domain
230 F.Supp.2d 260 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eric GAGNON, Defendant. No. 02-CR-127. United States District Court, N.D. New York. November 6, 2002. *261 Joseph A. Pavone, United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, Albany, NY (Carlos A. Moreno, Asst. United States Attorney, of counsel) for Plaintiff.
United States v. Perezpublic domain
198 F.Supp.2d 406 (2002) UNITED STATES of America v. Anabel PEREZ, Defendant. No. 00 CR 257(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 28, 2002. *407 David M. Siegal, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, New York City, for the Government. Louis R
United States v. Figueroa-Taveraspublic domain
228 F.Supp.2d 428 (2002) UNITED STATES of America v. Rogelio FIGUEROA-TAVERAS, Defendant. No. 02 CR. 333(RPP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. October 22, 2002. *429 Virginia L. Chavez, Assist. U.S. Atty., U. S. Atty. Office, Criminal Div., New York City, for U.S. OPINION AND ORDER ROBERT P. P
Jian Yun Zheng v. United States Department of Justice, John Ashcroft, United States Attorney Generalpublic domain
JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge. Jian Yun Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”), petitions this Court for review of an October 11, 2002, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. In her petition, Zheng argues, as she did in her motion to the BIA, that she was prejudiced in her prior a
United States v. Carrillo, Anselmopublic domain
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 00-2643 United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anselmo Carrillo and Francisco Soto, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 99 CR 54--Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge. Argued May 9, 2001--Decided October 18, 2001 Before Ripple, Manion, and Kanne, Circuit Judges. Kanne, Circuit Judge. After an investigation by the Drug En
United States v. Ramiro Maganapublic domain
COFFEY, Circuit Judge. This case presents the consolidated appeals of eight Defendants who were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana and were convicted of a variety of federal narcotics offenses. Defendants on appeal raise challenges to their convictions and sentences. We affirm. I. Factual Background T
United States v. Anselmo Carrillo and Francisco Sotopublic domain
KANNE, Circuit Judge. After an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration, (“DEA”), Anselmo Carrillo and Francisco Soto were arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine. The jury found them both guilty as charged, and each was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. On appeal, they present several
United States v. Eusebio Escobar-De Jesuspublic domain
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This case involves a large drug trafficking organization that imported cocaine from Colombia and distributed it in Puerto Rico and New York from 1986 until 1990. In April 1991, as the climax of a lengthy investigation, a federal grand jury returned a thirty-four count superseding indictment charging defendant-appellant-Eusebio Escobar-de Jesús (“Escobar”) a
Judge KEARSE dissents in a separate opinion. CALABRESI, Circuit Judge. The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. The Supreme Court, in Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 126 S.Ct. 403, 405, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam), recently cautioned lower federal courts against