Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 01-1396NE, 01-1397NE _______________________ _____________ * * No. 01-1396NE * _____________ * * United States of America,

462 F.3d 903 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Edwin MARTINEZ, Jr., also known as Edwin Martinez Franco, Jr., Appellant. No. 05-4275. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: June 14, 2006. Filed: September 11, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Katherine Menendez, argued, Minneapolis,

February 19, 2015 No. PD-1624-14 No. PD-1625-14 (Appeal No. 05-13-01112-CR) (Appeal No. 05-13-01113-CR) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CRUZ FRANCO MARTINEZ, Appellant/Petitioner v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appeal from Dallas County PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Christian T. Souza Attorney at Law

pd-1624-14 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 2/19/2015 7:10:12 PM Accepted 2/20/2015 8:10:50 AM

PER CURIAM. Two related appeals are before us. Guillermo Franco-Martinez pleaded guilty, under a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to seven years and three months (87 months) in prison. Saul Cirrillo-Davilla, a co-defendant, was also convicted on a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to five years and ten months (70 months) in prison. Both defendants appeal, raising separate questions

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed November 25, 2014. Court of Appeals S In The Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01112-CR No. 05-13-01113-CR CRUZ FRANCO MARTINEZ A/K/A CRUZ MARTINEZ, J. CRUZ MARTINEZ, AND J. C

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed November 25, 2014. Court of Appeals S In The Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01112-CR No. 05-13-01113-CR CRUZ FRANCO MARTINEZ A/K/A CRUZ MARTINEZ, J. CRUZ MARTINEZ, AND J. C

ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judge. Fausto Franco-Lopez (the “Employee”) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (the “Commission”) decision denying him compensation because it lacked jurisdiction over his claim. The Employee raises three points on appeal. First, the Employee argues that the Commission erred in not providing basic findings of fact for its decision becaus

SUMMARY ORDER Co-defendants-appellants Manuel Geral-do, Hargelis Vargas, and Jugo Cespedes (collectively, “defendants”) appeal from sentences and final judgments of conviction entered on October 30, 2015, November 25, 2015, and December 3, 2015, respectively, each by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Engelmayer, J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history,

OPINION AND ORDER GARCIA-GREGORY,. United States District Judge This case asks a seemingly easy question:- are murder and attempted murder *230violent felonies that require the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” However, the legal analysis of this question turns out to be more complicated and convoluted than common sense wou

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-1730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. WILSON SERRANO-MERCADO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gustavo Guerrero-Martinez (Guerrero) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Guerrero has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

617 F.3d 581 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gabriel RIVERA-RODRÍGUEZ, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Excel A. Muñiz-Massa, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Eduardo Pabón-Mandrell, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. José Rivera-Moreno, Defendant, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Christi

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

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

203 F.Supp.2d 102 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lorenzo MUNOZ-FRANCO, et al., Defendants. Criminal No. 95-386(DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. April 23, 2002. *103 Jorge L. Arroyo-Alejandro, San Juan, PR, Andres Guillemard-Noble, Nachman, Guillemard & Reb, San Juan, PR, Harry Anduze-Montano

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 21-1599 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MARIO RAFAEL CASTILLO, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

124 F.Supp.2d 1140 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Saul CIRRILLO-DAVILLA and Guillermo Franco-Martinez, Defendants. No. 4:00CR3017. United States District Court, D. Nebraska. January 10, 2001. *1141 David W. Stempson, Assist. U.S. Atty., Lincoln, Ne, for Plaintiff. Thomas R. Lamb, Anderson, Creager Law Firm,

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Felix Espinoza Gamboa, Frederick Healey, Luis Miguel Briones-Muro, and Cruz Estrada Martinez challenge their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, as well as several related substantive counts. Finding their claims of error meritless, we affirm. I.

(Reported below: 10 Fed. Appx. 546); C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.