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. MIRZA”
United States v. Mirzapublic domain
755 F.Supp.2d 329 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jaye MIRZA, Defendant. Criminal Action No. 08-10149-NMG. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. December 17, 2010. *331 William Keefe, Law Office of William Keefe, Jamaica Plain, MA, Judith H. Mizner, Federal Public Defender Office, Boston, MA, for Defendan
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Appellant Mirza Ali (“Ali”) was convicted of one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), and one count of making a false statement to obtain a bank loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment, four years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution to the victim bank. We have jurisdict
Mirza v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Koehl v. Mirzapublic domain
129 S.Ct. 2734 (2009) Edward KOEHL, petitioner, v. S. MIRZA, et al. No. 07-9519. Supreme Court of United States. June 1, 2009. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Appea
Mirza v. Holderpublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Muhammad Ahsan Farooq Mirza, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an October 30, 2007 order of the BIA summarily affirming the January 23, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, denying his motion to *411reopen his removal proceedings. In re Muhammad Alisan Farooq Mirza, No. A95 961 878 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2007)
Mirza v. Gonzalespublic domain
Petitioner, Rehan Mirza, (A79-076-803), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Matthew J. D’Angelo, rejecting the petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3), and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), adopted Dec. 10, 198
Mirza v. Holderpublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Muhammad Ahsan Farooq Mirza, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an October 30, 2007 order of the BIA summarily affirming the January 23, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Annette S. Elstein, denying his motion to *411reopen his removal proceedings. In re Muhammad Alisan Farooq Mirza, No. A95 961 878 (B.I.A. Oct. 27, 2007)
Mirza v. Gonzalespublic domain
SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner seeks review of an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings, In re Mirza, No. A 73 027 308 (B.I.A. May 6, 2005), following an earlier order of the BIA that, inter alia, denied a motion to remand for adjustment of status, In re Mirza, No. A 73 027 308 (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.<
Mirza v. Gonzalespublic domain
Petitioner, Rehan Mirza, (A79-076-803), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Matthew J. D’Angelo, rejecting the petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3), and relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), adopted Dec. 10, 198
McCleary v. Mirzapublic domain
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Muhammad Naeem Mirzapublic domain
45 F.3d 428NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Muhammad Naeem MIRZA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-7146. United States Cour
McCleary v. Mirzapublic domain
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mirza v. Garlandpublic domain
Case: 20-60132 Document: 00515914085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021 REVISED United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
Mirza v. Boulevard Retail LLCpublic domain
Mirza v Boulevard Retail LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01479) Mirza v Boulevard Retail LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 01479 Decided on March 21, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary La
Mirza v. Garlandpublic domain
Case: 20-60132 Document: 00515859305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
Jerome Mirza & Associates, Ltd. v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Jerome Mirza & Associates, Ltd. v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mirza v. Boulevard Retail LLCpublic domain
Mirza v Boulevard Retail LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01479) Mirza v Boulevard Retail LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 01479 Decided on March 21, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary La
Jerome Mirza & Associates, Ltd. v. United Statespublic domain
692 F.Supp. 918 (1988) JEROME MIRZA & ASSOCIATES, LTD., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. No. 86-3182. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division. August 12, 1988. Dean B. Rhoads, Sutkowski & Washkuhn Assoc., Peoria, Ill., for plaintiff. John A. Mehlick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Il
Jones v. Mirzapublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge: Plaintiff Matthew Jones, who appears pro se, filed this action on November 4, 2015, against Dr. Khaled Mirza (improperly named as Dr. Khalid Mirza) and Dover Behavioral Health System (improperly named as Dover Behavioral Health Hospital). The original complaint was dismissed on August 8, 2016, and Plaintiff was given leave to amend only to the extent that he r