Cases

MEMORANDUM** Appellant Mendoza-Valencia was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. Mendoza-Valencia now challenges the district court’s finding of guilt, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction. We have reviewed Mendoza-Valencia’s claim of insufficient evidence, and we find that this claim does not merit relief. To support a conviction

MEMORANDUM ** Arnoldo Mendoza-Valencia appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss. Mendoza-Valencia contends that the waiver of appeal contained in his plea agreement is unenforceable because his conviction was the result of vindictive prosecution. We disagree.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30158 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:16-cr-00113-RMP-1 JOSE MANUEL VALENCIA- MENDOZA, aka Jose OPINION Valencia-Vargas, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washin

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Filed 7/1/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN MIGUEL VALENCIA, JR., et B325803 al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Super. Ct. No. BC723902) Respondents, v. ARMANDO MENDOZA et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Co

MEMORANDUM ** The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. *637This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to

MEMORANDUM** Javier Mendoza-Valencia and Silvia Mendoza, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decisions affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that petitioner

336 F.3d 739 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Rogelio PRECIADO, also known as Emilio Mendoza-Valencia, Defendant-Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.v.Pablo Borges-Cano, also known as Jaimie Samorano Defendant-Appellant.United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Humberto Sanchez, also known as Humberto Sanchez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-3124.<

9 F.3d 1377 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Linda Marie CONKINS, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Alfredo Amador BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Alberto Valencia BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Robert Leroy SANDVIG, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Pla

987 F.2d 564 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Linda Marie CONKINS, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Alfredo Amador BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Alberto Valencia BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Robert Leroy SANDVIG, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES of America, Pl

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Mariano Valencia Mendoza and Jose Francisco Garza Tovar entered conditional guilty pleas to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). On appeal, they challenge the district court’s 2 denial of their motions to

ORDER Upon consideration of Kevin A. Barnes, et al.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Kevin Barnes et al. (Barnes) notify the court that the United States Court of Federal Claims has requested that this court dismiss “the entire matter on appeal, without prejudice, and remand to this court for the purpose of addressing all outstanding matters.” We treat Barnes’ notification as a motion to remand. The United States has not responded. On

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I concur in the affirmance of the convictions and sentences of Rogelio Preciado and Pablo Borges-Cano. I dissent from the opinion affirming the conviction of Humberto Sanchez. I would remand to the district court for a hearing on Sanchez’s motion for a new trial on grounds that Preciado will testify Sanchez had not

Case: 24-40109 Document: 223-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-40109 FILED Aug

Appellate Case: 23-3172 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH January 14, 2025

*847(Reported below: 8 Fed. Appx. 704); (15 Fed. Appx. 404); (8 Fed. Appx. 712); (8 Fed. Appx. 710); (7 Fed. Appx. 592); (8 Fed. Appx. 709); (8 Fed. Appx. 706); (8 Fed. Appx. 671); (7 Fed. Appx. 599); *848

Case: 22-30442 Document: 00516988587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/04/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

Case: 21-40574 Document: 00516703466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 6, 2023

957 F.Supp. 1155 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Eduardo MENDOZA; Emiliano Tapia Avina; Jose Agustin Castillo; Jose Manuel Cerpas Valencia; Sandra Perez, Richard Galicia; Manuel Belmonte Bucio, Defendants. No. Cr. S-94-294 WBS. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 2, 1997. *1156 Mary M. French, Fe