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. Cruz-Ruiz”
United States v. Cruz-Ruizpublic domain
OPINION FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Appellant Raymond Cruz-Ruiz appeals from the District Court’s sentence of 57 months imprisonment and a three year term of supervised release, contending that the Court improperly imposed a sixteen level enhancement and that the sentence was unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm the District Court’s judgment. I. The Distri
United States v. Cruz-Ruizpublic domain
OPINION FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Appellant Raymond Cruz-Ruiz appeals from the District Court’s sentence of 57 months imprisonment and a three year term of supervised release, contending that the Court improperly imposed a sixteen level enhancement and that the sentence was unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm the District Court’s judgment. I. The Distri
United States v. Ruiz-Cruzpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Candido Ruiz-Cruz appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ruiz-Cruz contends that the district court erred during the revocation hearing by improperly relying on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law. The record reflects that the
United States v. Ruiz-Cruzpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Candido Ruiz-Cruz appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ruiz-Cruz contends that the district court erred during the revocation hearing by improperly relying on the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote respect for the law. The record reflects that the
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Leticia Ruiz DE CRUZ, Defendant-Appellantpublic domain
T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW The defendant, Maria Leticia Ruiz de Cruz, appeals her jury conviction of knowingly accepting and receiving counterfeit immigration documents as evidence of employment authorization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDUR
United States v. Thunapublic domain
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), which is not a party here, requests that the Court enter an Order of Restitution directing defendant Martin Thuna ("Thuna") to pay Lilly $ 2,099,018.01 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sections 3663(a)(2) ("Victim and Witness Protection Act," or "VWPA"), 3664, and 3771(e)(2)(A) ("Crime Victims' Rights Act," or "CVRA"). (Docket No. 23.) The United States and Thun
Rodriguez v. United Statespublic domain
DYK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs challenge the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) regulations that exclude cost-of-living allowances (“COLAs”) 1 from the calculation of retirement and other benefits. These COLAs are received by federal employees working in non-foreign areas located outside the contiguous United States
United States v. Diazpublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Hector Cruz appeals the portion of a judgment, entered on May 11, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that sentenced Cruz to two concurrent terms of 135 months’ imprisonment for his involvement in a conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the issues on appeal.
Pritchett v. United Statespublic domain
*970C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 976; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 977; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 693; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 117 Fed. Appx. 931; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 127 Fed. Appx. 472; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 114 Fed. Appx. 351;
Pritchett v. United Statespublic domain
*970C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 976; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 977; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 116 Fed. Appx. 693; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 117 Fed. Appx. 931; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 127 Fed. Appx. 472; C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 114 Fed. Appx. 351;
United States v. Rodriguez-Torrespublic domain
(2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. RODRIGUEZ-TORRES, et al., Defendants. Criminal No. 07-302 (JAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. January 2, 2008. OPINION AND ORDER GARCIA-GREGORY, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendant Hernan Lugo Oliveri's ("Defendant") Motion for Bill of Particulars. (Docket No. 12
Bishop v. United Statespublic domain
*995C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 217; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 383 F. 3d 436; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 981; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 126 Fed. Appx. 462; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 246; C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 388 F. 3d 1104;
Bishop v. United Statespublic domain
*995C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 217; C. A. 6th Cir. Reported below: 383 F. 3d 436; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 125 Fed. Appx. 981; C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 126 Fed. Appx. 462; C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 115 Fed. Appx. 246; C. A. 7th Cir. Reported below: 388 F. 3d 1104;
Adams v. United Statespublic domain
MICHEL, Circuit Judge. This suit was brought by certain present and former United States Border Patrol agents, alleging that the government wrongly and willfully failed to pay the plaintiffs overtime wages at a time-and-a-half rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). The government conceded that the plaintiffs had not been paid for overtime, but contended that all of the various position
Chacon-Avitia v. United Statespublic domain
544 U.S. 996 CHACON-AVITIAv.UNITED STATESCONEJO-CANOv.UNITED STATESGALLEGOS-LUERA, AKA TORRES-MONSISVAISv.UNITED STATESGONZALEZ-BARRAZAv.UNITED STATESGONZALEZ-CALDERONv.UNITED STATESGRANADOS-VASQUEZv.UNITED STATESMARTINEZ-MORALES, AKA MALDONADO, AKA MARTINEZv.UNITED STATESMUNOZ-MARQUEZv.UNITED STATESONTIVEROS, AKA SAUCEDO-ONTIVEROSv.UNITED STATES
Adams v. United Statespublic domain
350 F.3d 1216 Rowdy D. ADAMS, Ricardo E. Aguirre, Sheri L. Althoff, Luis R. Alvarado, Luis A. Amavizca, Paul H. Ammerman, Paul A. Anderson, Jaime M. Arras, Larry G. Arthurs, Larry H. Arthurs, Martha I. Arvizu, James R. Ash, David J. Astle, John T. Attanasio, Meri L. Axberg, Albert Bailey, Jr., Robert V. Bakowski, Donald L. Barley, John C. Bates, James W. Baumann, Paul A. Beeson, James S. Bendorf, David P. Bennett, Frank J. Beverly, William L. Black
United States v. Castropublic domain
175 F.Supp.2d 129 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. [05] Martires Paulino CASTRO, [08] Esteban Martinez García, [23] Carlos Valdes, Defendants Criminal No. 00-0693(PG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. November 14, 2001. *130 Miriam R. Ramos-Grateroles, San Juan, for Rafael Reynoso-De-La-Cruz. Marl
Hernandez-Duque v. United Statespublic domain
*999(Reported below: 73 Fed. Appx. 83); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 82); (73 Fed. Appx. 82); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx
Hernandez-Duque v. United Statespublic domain
*999(Reported below: 73 Fed. Appx. 83); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx. 82); (73 Fed. Appx. 82); (73 Fed. Appx. 81); (73 Fed. Appx
Chigozie Iwouha v. United Statespublic domain
(Reported below: 71 Fed. Appx. 384); (72 Fed. Appx. 957); (71 Fed. Appx. 437); (72 Fed. Appx. 971); (72 Fed. Appx. 962); (74 Fed. Appx. 357); (73 Fed. Appx. 75); (71 Fed. Appx. 397); (72 Fed. Appx. 955); (72 Fed. Appx. 961); (72 Fed. Appx. 960); (72 Fed. Appx. 954);