Cases

MEMORANDUM ** The United States appeals the district court’s order dismissing the case and releasing Defendant Gilberto Hernandez-Medina. The government requests an order from this Court reversing the dismissal so that it may renew charges against Hernandez-Medina if he ever returns to the United States. Because the district court’s order does not bar future prosecution, the relief the gov

957 F.2d 867 U.S.v.Hernandez-Medina* NO. 91-2288 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Feb 28, 1992 1 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. 2

MEMORANDUM ** Juan de Dios Medina-Hernandez appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed on resentencing following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed and/or excluded alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have *477jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Medina-Hernandez conte

MEMORANDUM * The Supreme Court vacated our judgment entered October 26, 2004, and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Medina-Hernandez’s Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentencing enhancement, based on a prior aggravated felony conviction, remains foreclosed after Booker. See United States

543 U.S. 1138 MEDINA-HERNANDEZv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-8257. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 2005. 1 C. A. 9th Cir. Reported below: 111 Fed. Appx. 961. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated,

MEMORANDUM ** Juan De Dios Medina-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful reentry by a deported, removed and/or excluded alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Medina-Hernandez asserts that the elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) must be pled in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree and affirm.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM * Following our memorandum decision of this appeal on November 27, 2001, we stayed our mandate pending the final decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. Ruiz,. The Supreme Court has now decided Ruiz in a manner adverse to the sole argument raised by Medina-Hernandez in this appeal. United States v. Ruiz, - U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2450, - L.Ed.2d -(2002).<

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM * After oral argument in this appeal, we withdrew this case from submission and ordered supplemental briefing to address the effect on this case of our recent decision in United States v. Ruiz, 241 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2001). That briefing has been completed, and this case is ordered resubmitted for decision contemporaneously with the filing of this memorandum.

FIFTH DIVISION MCFADDEN, P. J., HODGES and PIPKIN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules Oc

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Luis M. Medina-Velázquez, Juan J. Méndez-Cruz, and Héctor R. Cruz-Medina (“appellants”)-employees of , Puerto Rico’s Department of Transportation and Public Works (“DTOP”) 1 and members of Puerto Rico’s Popular Democratic Party (“PDP”)—appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims of politi

BERZON, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals were brought by defendants seeking to reduce their sentences for drug-related crimes. They invoke 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which allows a court to reduce in certain circumstances a previously imposed sentence, and contend that the Supreme Court's recent interpretat

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

PER CURIAM: This appeal requires us to determine whether the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dora L. Irizarry, Judge) erred by denying defendant-appellant Benjamin Figueroa’s motion for resentencing, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Although the District Court concluded that Figueroa was eligible

FIRST DIVISION BARNES, P. J., BROWN and HODGES, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

820 F.Supp.2d 301 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Joseph McCloskey DIAZ, et al., Defendants. Criminal No. 09-364(FAB). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. October 14, 2011. *302 Jenifer Yois Hernandez-Vega, Jose A. Ruiz-Santiago, United States Attorneys Office, District of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR, for P

OPINION {¶ 1} Defendant, Jose Hernandez-Medina, appeals from a judgment denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. {¶ 2} On January 1, 2006, Springfield police officers executed a search warrant at Defendant's residence and *Page 2 discovered between ten and twenty-five grams of powder cocaine, $6,786.00 in cash

807 F.Supp.2d 1154 (2011) UNITED STATES of America, v. Juan Manuel ACOSTA, Martin Arreola-Romero, Angel Luis Ayala, Otha Barnes, Gerald Edward Durrance, Martina Casas Flores, Ramiro Hernandez-Duque, Jorge Lucatero-Torres, Belisario Gil Mendoza, Juan Manuel Mendoza, Raphael Pedroza Perez, Obiel Pineda-Pardo, Alfonso Rios, Jr., Jose Cesar Almeida, Jorge Alejandro Anaya-Medina, Luis Manuel Haces-Delgado, Alejandro De La Cruz-Plancarte, Javier De La

PER CURIAM: The government moves to dismiss these interlocutory criminal appeals for lack of jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeals. I. BACKGROUND On February 10, 198

166 F.3d 1052 1999 CJ C.A.R. 1276 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Octavio DOMINGUEZ-CARMONA, Defendant-Appellee.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Jorge Hernandez-Villanueva, Defendant-Appellee.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Jose Rubio-Loya, Defendant-Appellee.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Francisco Romo-Medina, D

PER CURIAM: Cynthia Hernandez, appointed counsel for Jose Medina-Valencia, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Medina-Valencia, in response, has filed a motion seeking permission to proceed informa pauperis, and to file a pro se brief. Our independent review of the entire record reveals