Cases

OPINION RICE, District Judge. This is a criminal prosecution brought under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4), for fraudulent use of a Social Security number. The Defendant pled guilty. At sentencing, the *60district court granted Defendant’s motion for a downward departure. The matter is before this Court on the Government’s appeal from the district court’s downwa

618 F.2d 111 U. S.v.Burrus 79-1748 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Seventh Circuit 2/1/80 1 S.D.Ind. AFFIRMED

577 F.2d 745 U. S.v.Burrus No. 77-1808 United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit 4/7/78 1 E.D.Ill. AFFIRMED

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

336 F.3d 82 William BURRUS, President, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Anthony VEGLIANTE, Vice President, Labor Relations, United States Postal Service, Elaine Kaplan, Special Counsel, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Kay Coles James, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and United States Postal Service, Defendants-A

WINTER, Circuit Judge. This action involves the questions of whether the 1939 Hatch Act, as amended in 1993, 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326, prohibits postal workers from displaying political materials on union bulletin boards in nonpublic areas of post offices, and, if so, whether the Act is constitutional. Various federal officials, the United States Office of Personnel Management, and the United States Postal S

247 F.Supp.2d 372 (2002) William BURRUS, President, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and American Postal Workers Union, Plaintiffs, v. Anthony J. VEGLIANTE, Vice President, Labor Relations, United States Postal Service, and United States Postal Service, and Elaine Kaplan, Special Counsel, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Kay Coles James, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, and U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Defendants.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

850 F.Supp. 963 (1993) Vernon V. BURRUS and Letha L. Burrus, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, and the United States of America, Defendants. No. CIV-93-152-T. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. December 17, 1993. *964 Daniel E. McMahan, Ivester Braddock & McMahan, Altus, OK, for plaintiffs.</

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and certiorari granted.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 80849-4-I Respondent, DIVISION ONE v. PUBLISHED OPINION CHRISTOPHER SEAN BURRUS, Appellant. CHUN, J. — Christopher Burrus poured gasoline on Kasey Busch and threw a lit flare at him, causing him to catch fire. Busch suffered second and third degree burns on 30 perc

C. A. 9th Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, ante, p. 816.] Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with instructions to vacate the injunction and to dismiss the cause as moot.

Burrus v Douglaston Realty Mgt. Corp. (2019 NY Slip Op 06061) Burrus v Douglaston Realty Mgt. Corp. 2019 NY Slip Op 06061 Decided on August 7, 2019 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law R

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

407 F.Supp.2d 26 (2005) John M. McGOVERN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. William BURRUS, et al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 04-1084(RJL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 21, 2005. *27 John M. McGovern, Jr., Ridgewood, NJ, pro se. Darryl James Anderson, O'Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, P.C., Washington, DC, for

*948 KING, District Judge: Numerous individual and corporate victims of a large wildfire in southeastern Washington State appeal the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of their suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. The suit sou

MEMORANDUM ** Melvin Burrus appeals pro se from the dismissal of his claims against a physician who examined him in the Los Angeles County jail, and the jury verdict in favor of the City of Los Angeles, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was arrested without probable cause and injured by substandard medical care while incarcerated. We affirm. We review de novo the dismissal