Cases

KING, Circuit Judge, concurring: Although the en banc majority utilizes the modified categorical approach to analyze whether a prior conviction for violating North Carolina General Statute section 14-202.1 (the “Indecent Liberties Statute” or “Statute”) qualifies as an ACCA “violent felony,” I am convinced that we are required by precedent to evaluate Vann’s convictions under the Statute by sole resort to th

KING, Circuit Judge, dissenting: With great respect for my fine colleagues of the majority, I strongly disagree with their decision in this case. I write separately in dissent for several reasons. First, the majority errs in deciding that North Carolina General Statute § 14-202.1 (the “Indecent Liberties Statute,” or the “Statute”) delineates two distinct crimes, thereby justifying its application of the “modifi

Rehearing en banc granted, January 6, 2011 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 09-4298 TORRELL CHUVALA VANN, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,

173 F.Supp. 397 (1959) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 1-299. United States District Court S. D. Iowa, W. D. April 3, 1959. *398 Roy L. Stephenson, U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, John C. Stevens, Asst. U. S. Atty., Muscatine, Iowa, Daniel M. O'Donoghue, Washington, D.

NEWBY, Justice. *812 This case is about whether the State properly authenticated a surveillance video showing defendant stealing shirts from a Belk Department Store (Belk) and whether a witness’s lay opinion testimony based on that video was admissible. By presenting evidence that the video surveillance

716 S.E.2d 255 (2011) STATE of North Carolina v. Bradley Steven COLLINS. No. COA11-207. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. October 4, 2011. *256 Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Roberta A. Ouellette, for the State. Lynn Norton-Ramirez, Chapel Hill, for defendant appellant. McCULLOUGH, Judg

BURKE, Justice. [¶ 1] Donald Rabuck pled guilty to two counts of taking immodest, immoral, or indecent liberties with a minor, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the charges. Mr. Ra-buek asserts that the indecent liberties statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. We affirm. ISSUE [¶ 2] Is the indecent liberties st

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA25-288 Filed 7 January 2026 Wake County, No. 17CR217241-910 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DURWARD WILSON LEGGETT III, Defendant. Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 7 October 2024 by Judge A. Graham Shirley in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 October 2025. Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special

473 S.E.2d 596 (1996) 344 N.C. 31 STATE of North Carolina v. Leander TAYLOR and Bennie Lee Taylor, Jr. No. 498A93. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 31, 1996. *601 Michael F. Easley, Attorney General by Gail E. Weis, Associate Attorney General, for State. Donnie R. Taylor, Ahoskie, for defendant

HEDRICK, Chief Judge. Defendants Cannon and Redmond both assign error to the “[t]rial court’s determination before trial and before the sentencing hearing of the sentence to be imposed upon defendants] in the event of a conviction, on the grounds that such determination was grossly improper and violated defendants’ right to due process under the North Carolina Constitution and N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1340.3, 1340.4.” The record

420 S.E.2d 414 (1992) 332 N.C. 372 STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Anthony TAYLOR. No. 170A91. Supreme Court of North Carolina. September 4, 1992. *416 Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Mary Jill Ledford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for State. Daniel F. Read, Durham, for defendant-appellant.

ESTATE OF E. A. WICKHAM, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. B. P. WICKHAM, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.Wickham v. Commissioner

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

292 U.S. 86 (1934) MONAMOTOR OIL CO. v. JOHNSON, TREASURER OF IOWA, ET AL. No. 555. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 7, 8, 1934. Decided April 2, 1934. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA. *88 Messrs. Paul E. Roadifer and M.D. Kirk, with

Petitions for writs'of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

*1397OPINION. Lansdon : The partnership of E. A. Wickham and Company was formed by E. A. Wickham and B. P. Wickham about the year 1888, and conducted by them as a two-member firm without change during and throughout its entire life. Prior to 1923 this partnership filed no income tax returns; but for that year, after an investigation had been started

MARTIN, Justice. On charges involving his daughter,1 defendant was convicted of four counts of rape in the first degree, four counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, and four counts of incest. On additional charges involving his son, defendant was convicted of single counts of crime against nature, taking indecent liberties with a child, and sexual offense in the second degree. Defendant

335 F.Supp. 603 (1971) Pat EIDSCHUN and Darrel Ellis, as co-administrators of the Estate of Leo A. Eidschun, Deceased, Plaintiffs, v. Everett J. PIERCE et al., Defendants. Civ. No. 3-886-W. United States District Court, S. D. Iowa, W. D. December 20, 1971. *604 *605 Robert J. Laubenthal, Frank

357 S.E.2d 898 (1987) STATE of North Carolina v. Bernardino ZUNIGA. No. 156A85. Supreme Court of North Carolina. July 7, 1987. *903 Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen., by Joan H. Byers and William N. Farrell, Jr., Sp. Deputy Attys. Gen., Raleigh, for the State. Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Robin E. Hudson, As

MEYER, Justice. The defendant was convicted of the first-degree murder of Jorge Delgado and sentenced to death. He brings forward assignments of error relative to the guilt-innocence phase and the sen*404tencing phase of his trial. Having considered the entire record and each of the assignments, we find no prejudicial error in either phase of the defendant’s trial. Th