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.
12 opinions for “United States v. Colunga-Flores”
Meza v. United Statespublic domain
*1098C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 82 Fed. Appx. 122; C. A. D. C. Cir. Reported below: 360 F. 3d 1339; *1099No. 03-10727. No. 03-10742. No. 03-10752. No. 03-10755. <
United States v. Blake-Saldivarpublic domain
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendants-appellants were convicted of conspiracy to distribute a massive amount of marijuana. Of thirty-three indicted defendants, seven went to trial, and five were found guilty. All five now appeal. Although the individual cases share common facts, many of the issues on appeal are unique to each individual. The issues on appeal include evidentiary issues, challenges to the jury instructions, argume
United States v. Bailon-Cruzpublic domain
351 F.Supp.2d 1131 (2004) UNITED STATES OF America, Plaintiff, v. Amado BAILON-CRUZ, Tomas Bailon-Flores, Leonardo Moctezuma-Castro, Santiago Sagal-Lara, Carlos Nunez-Zubiate, Defendants. No. CR. 04-CR-266-RB. United States District Court, D. Colorado. November 15, 2004. *1132 Stephen M. Wheeler, Wheeler Law Offices, PC, Evergree
BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge: Appellant Gerald Vontsteen was convicted by a jury on twenty-one counts of aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342 and on one count of transporting stolen property in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Vontsteen appealed, arguing, among other issues, that the mailings were not in furtherance of the fraud as required by law. Thi
Timothy Morales v. Statepublic domain
SUBSTITUTE OPINION WILLIAM J. BOYCE, Justice. We overrule the motion for rehearing; we withdraw our opinion dated April 24, 2012, and issue the following substitute opinion. A jury convicted appellant Timothy Morales of injury to a child and assessed punishment at 55 years’ imprisonment. Appellant argues he is entitled to a new t
Ramirez v. Statepublic domain
89 S.W.3d 222 (2002) Arturo RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 13-01-00316-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg. October 10, 2002. Rehearing Overruled November 14, 2002. *224 Philip Thomas Cowen, Brownsville, for Arturo Ramirez. John A. Olson, Assistant County & Dist
Martinez v. Statepublic domain
198 S.W.3d 36 (2006) Maria Ester MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 13-04-010-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg. March 9, 2006. Rehearing Overruled August 24, 2006. *39 Joseph A. Connors, III, McAllen, Laura Martinez Colunga, Edinburg, for appellant. Theodore C.
Arturo Ramirez v. Statepublic domain
Coronado v. Schoenmann Produce Co.public domain
99 S.W.3d 741 (2003) Cenobio CORONADO and Ofelia Coronado, Individually, and as Next Friends of Their Children, Armando, Alicia, Jorge, and Anna Christina, Appellants, v. SCHOENMANN PRODUCE CO., Appellee. No. 14-99-01335-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.). February 6, 2003. *744 Robert William Higgason, Woodlands
Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion Issued December 20, 2001 Withdrawn; Affirmed and Substitute Opinion filed Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing Overruled; Opinion Issued December 20, 2001 Withdrawn; Affirmed and Substitute Opinion filed February 6, 2003.
Upton County, Tex. v. Brownpublic domain
960 S.W.2d 808 (1997) UPTON COUNTY, Texas, Appellant, v. Larry Joe BROWN, Appellee. No. 08-96-00378-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. September 4, 1997. Rehearing Overruled October 8, 1997. *811 C. Rex Hall, Jr., Allison & Associates, Austin, for appellant. Andrew Trusevich, Ford, Yungblut, White
Easley v. Statepublic domain
OPINION This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of murder under the former penal code. The appellant was indicted in Grayson County, but there was a change of venue to Collin County. A jury returned a death penalty verdict, the trial judge granted a new trial, and there was another change of venue to Victoria County. After a jury was impaneled in Victoria County the appellant's jury waiver was accepted and approved; the court heard the evidence, entered a