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.
18 opinions for “United States v. Torrez-Rojas”
United States v. Velasquez-Torrezpublic domain
609 F.3d 743 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heliodoro VELASQUEZ-TORREZ, also known as Andre Ramirez-Gomes, also known as Heliodoro Velasquez-Torres, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-40646. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 18, 2010. *744 James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for U.
United States v. Munozpublic domain
Revised September 16, 1998 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 97-50427 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MARTIN GONZALEZ MUNOZ, Defenda
United States v. Martin Gonzalez Munozpublic domain
HEARTFIELD, District Judge: Appellant, Martin Gonzalez Munoz, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. I A Munoz, a convicted felon, moved into an apartment located at 11625 Rojas in El Paso, Texas, with his
United States v. Lee Travis Andrewspublic domain
790 F.2d 803 54 USLW 2587 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Lee Travis ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 84-1458, 85-1249. United States Court of Appeals,Tenth Circuit. April 30, 1986. Stephanie J. Griffin, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.
Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc.public domain
650 F.3d 350 (2011) Luisa PEREZ; Elvin Francisco Gonza Osovio, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and Ray Barrientos; Maria Gomez; Juana Miguel; Gibran Moya Rivera; Gloria Paneto Castro; Shitwa Perez Lopez; Jose Antonio Santiag Lugo; Maritza Alcover
People v. Rojaspublic domain
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.
Roberto Silva-Pereira v. Loretta E. Lynchpublic domain
OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether substantial evidence ■ supports the determination of the Board of Immigration Appeals that this petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal to Nicaragua and whether he qualifies for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. I
State v. Padillapublic domain
The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date
State v. Jonespublic domain
The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Chief Clerk for compliance with Rule 23- 112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date:
State v. Garypublic domain
144 P.3d 634 (2006) STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lorenzo C. GARY, Appellant. No. 93,089. Supreme Court of Kansas. October 27, 2006. *637 Carl Folsom, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause, and Michelle Davis, of the same office, was on the brief for appellant. Boyd K. Isherwood, assistant district attorney
Rigler v. Lampertpublic domain
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCOTT W. SKAVDAHL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court upon an amended pro se prisoner civil rights complaint, [ECF No. 8], filed in forma pauper-is, [ECF No. 6], pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by Dennis E. Rigler, Plaintiff.-Currently pending before t
People v. Bankstonpublic domain
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY GEORGE BANKSTON, Defendant and Appellant. S044739 Los Angeles County Superior Court VA007955 June 1, 2026 Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero
Castelli v. Department of Professional Regulationpublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer. RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 17-18, 1987, in Miami, Florida. Respondent denied the application of each of the Petitioners for licensure by examination as a physician in the
Banks v. Statepublic domain
56 Md. App. 38 (1983) 466 A.2d 69 CARL L. BANKS v. STATE OF MARYLAND. No. 1878, September Term, 1982. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. October 14, 1983. Patrick D. Hanley, Assigned Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on brief, for appellant. Diane G. Goldsmith, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Stephen
Harris v. Office of Personnel Managementpublic domain
NIES, Chief Judge. Edward L. Harris appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board), MSPB No. AT0831910870I-1, affirming on February 27, 1992, the determination of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that he elected to provide a survivor annuity for his spouse which election is irrevocable under the Civil Service Retirement System Spouse Equity Act. 53 M.S.P.R. 177. We affirm.
ACCEPTED 15-25-00013-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 12:26 PM No. 15-25-00013-CV
ACCEPTED 15-25-00012-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/8/2025 3:13 PM No. 15-25-00012-CV
ACCEPTED 04-15-00469-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/3