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. Moeller”
United States v. Moellerpublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Richard Helfrich and William Moeller appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their respective 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petitions for postconviction relief. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of these cases, we will not recount it here. Appellants claim that their trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not moving to suppres
United States v. Moellerpublic domain
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge: Defendants Mike Moeller, Peter McRae and Billie Quicksall were convicted on multiple counts of bribery, misapplication of state funds, and a single count of conspiracy to commit those unlawful acts. Defendants appeal their convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the prosecution’s exercise of peremp
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-CV-313 JAMES W. MOELLER, APPELLANT, V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AP
United States v. Moellerpublic domain
DECISION MURDOCK, Judge: There are at least three non-medical bases for directing urinalysis of a servicemember: command-directed (where probable cause does not exist or is not relied on as a basis) as authorized by Air Force Regulation 30-2, Social Actions Program, para. 5-8 (18 April 1986); random unit testing under Mil.R.Evid. 313(b); and those directed pursuant to a search authorization based
United States v. Moellerpublic domain
402 F.Supp. 49 (1975) UNITED STATES of America v. Charles D. MOELLER et al. Crim. No. N-75-59. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. October 7, 1975. *50 Peter C. Dorsey, U. S. Atty., William F. Dow, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff. Theodore I. Koskoff, Bridgeport, Conn., William H. Clendene
Swimmer v. Moeller (In Re Moeller)public domain
466 B.R. 525 (2012) In re Michael D. MOELLER and Gloria A. Moeller, Debtors. Andrew E. Swimmer, Plaintiff, v. Michael D. Moeller, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 08-08241-LT7. Adversary No. 11-90207-LT. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California. March 5, 2012. *529 M. Richardson Lynn, Jr., Wagner, Lynn, and Lujan, San Diego,
Moeller v. Gilbertpublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
United States v. Gary Moellerpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-3011 ___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Distri
Moeller v. Weberpublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Laona State Bank v. Moellerpublic domain
STARK, P.J. ¶1 In this mortgage foreclosure action, the circuit court granted Laona State Bank (the Bank) a foreclosure judgment against Judson Moeller, Carol Moeller, and Moeller-Valley, Inc. (collectively, the Moellers). The Bank was the winning bidder at a subsequent sheriff's sale, and the court entered an order confirming the sale on August 21, 2014. ¶2 Nearly two years later, in June 2016, the Bank wrote to the
Moeller v. Harrispublic domain
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Gary Lynn Moellerpublic domain
LOKEN, Chief Judge. Gary Lynn Moeller pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and distribute five grams or more of actual methamphetamine. The statutory minimum sentence for this offense is five years in prison. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Moeller’s guidelines sentencing range is seventy-eight to ninety-seven months in prison. The government filed
Moeller v. Harrispublic domain
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied. Same case below, 428 Fed. Appx. 771.
United States v. Moellerpublic domain
Opinion of the Court George W. Latimer, Judge: The accused was ordered tried before a special court-martial and found guilty of the commission of five separate offenses. Three of the crimes were violations of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892, and grew out of failures to obey regulations or orders. The other two offenses were alleged as crimes proscribed by Article 121 of the
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Moeller v. Bradford Countypublic domain
444 F.Supp.2d 316 (2006) Clark MOELLER; Jane Moeller; Jeffrey Gonzalez; Laura Blaine; Kris Schwenke; and Tim Thurston, Plaintiffs v. BRADFORD COUNTY; Carol L. Laveery, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency; Alberto Gonzalez, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; The Firm Foundation of America, d/b/a the Firm Foundation of Bradford County; Defendants
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Moeller v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.