Cases

FRANCISCO A. BESOSA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are defendants Rafael Espinal-Mieses ("Espinal")'s and Francisco Batista-Reyes ("Batista")'s respective motions for application of the safety valve provision set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (" section 3553(f)," or "statutory safety value") and U.S.

OPINION CHIN, Circuit Judge: In this case, defendant Jose Espinal moves in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment against him for prosecutorial misconduct. In particular, he alleges that the government violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Celine Espinal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 *391U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Espinal has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this t

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant Rigoberto Espinal appeals from a July 11, 2007 judgment entered by the District Court, convicting him of possession with intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii), and re-sentencing him principally to 96 months’ imprisonment.1 An appeal of the July 11, 2007 judgment ensued. On June 18, 2008, a motions panel of this Court

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. An undercover United States Customs Task Force operation involving efforts on land, at sea, and in the air, ended with the arrests of the defendants, Saturnino Tatis-Núñez (“Tatis”), César Hernández-De la Rosa (“Hernández”), Carlos Espinal-Almeida (“Espinal”), and Jacobo Peguero-Carela (“Peguero”). Each was indicted on, and ultimately convicted of, one c

634 F.3d 655 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose D. ESPINAL, also known as Nano, Cesar David Valdez-Castro, also known as David, also known as Cesar D. Valdez-Castro, also known as Malicia, Defendants, Santo Laiz, also known as Martin, Defendant-Appellant.[*] Docket No. 09-4344-cr. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Submitted: January

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant Rigoberto Espinal appeals from a July 11, 2007 judgment entered by the District Court, convicting him of possession with intent to distribute five hundred grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(ii), and re-sentencing him principally to 96 months’ imprisonment.1 An appeal of the July 11, 2007 judgment ensued. On June 18, 2008, a motions panel of this Court

MEMORANDUM ** David D. Espinal appeals from his 190-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and *566conspiracy to engage in money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Pursuant to <

PER CURIAM:* Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Denis Omar Espinal raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

PER CURIAM.* Susana Clementina Espinal appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Espinal argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235,

ORDER Juan Espinal pleaded guilty to possessing heroin for intended distribution, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). On November 29, 2001, he was sentenced to thirty-seven months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. It is from this judgment that Espinal now appeals. His appeal has been referred to a panel of this court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination,

*625SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Ramon Espinal appeals from a judgment of conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),(b)(1)(A) that sentenced Espinal to 121 months of imprisonment.

55 F.3d 636 U.S.v.Espinal* NO. 94-2539 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. May 12, 1995 1 Appeal From: M.D.Fla., No. 93-00255-CR-T-25B 2

769 F.Supp. 116 (1991) UNITED STATES of America v. Cornelio ESPINAL and Jose Antonio Dominguez, Defendants. No. 89 Cr. 763 (KTD). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 18, 1991. *117 Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Anne W. Patterson, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for U.S. Bobbi C. Ster

963 F.2d 1522 U.S.v.Espinal NO. 91-1682 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Apr 20, 1992 1 Appeal From: S.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1341 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Elmer Joel Espinal

MEMORANDUM-DECISION-ORDER McAVOY, Chief Judge. Currently before the Court is a pre-trial motion filed by defendant Carlos Mario Espinal-Mejia. Within this motion, the defendant seeks a severance based upon alleged misjoinder of counts and defendants in the indictment. The Court will address these issues seriatim. a. misjoinder of counts Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER BESOSA, District Judge. Before the Court is defendant Gonzalez’s motion to suppress contraband and his post-arrest statements. (Docket No. 28.) The United States responded to defendant Gonzalez’s motion to suppress, Docket No. 32, and defendant Gonzalez replied, Docket No. 34. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Bruce J. McGiverin. (Docket No. 30.) The magistr