Cases

Senior Judge RUSSELL W. BENCH authored this Memorandum Decision, in which Judges J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. and KATE A. TOOMEY concurred. 1 Memorandum Decision BENCH, Senior Judge: ¶ 1 Ryan M. Valencia appeals his convie-tion

NUMBER 13-22-00058-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ EFRAIN VALENCIA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. ______________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * HENRY, Circuit Judge. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Karen J. William

Opinion FRANSON, P. J. The important question presented by this appeal is whether, when the magistrate suppresses evidence at the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor can dismiss the complaint and relitigate the issues after filing a second complaint rather than seeking review of the unfavorable ruling. The issue involves reconciling subdivisions (d) and (j) of Pena

749 P.2d 1123 (1988) 106 N.M. 744 Raymond E. MARES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VALENCIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Employer, and Rockwood Insurance Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees, and Vicente B. Jasso, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New Mexico, and the New Mexico Subsequent Injury Fund, Defendants-Appellants. and VALENCIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Employer, and Rockwood Insurance Company, Insu

OPINION DONNELLY, Chief Judge. This case involves the proper method for determining the liability of the Subsequent Injury Fund (Fund), where the employer and its insurance carrier enter into a settlement with an injured worker, and both subsequently seek reimbursement from the Fund under the Subsequent Injury Act (SIA). The Fund appeals from

ROGERS, District Judge. This cause comes on with two other like causes, upon a motion filed by the claimant to remand it to the District Court of Valencia County. This case was originally filed in the Second Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, within and for the County of Valencia, and bore docket number 7103 thereof. The claim, which was one for Workmen’s Compensation under Article 9, Chapter 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on the DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION • ON PROBATION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (ECF No. 21) (“Def. Mot.”). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion will be granted and the Petition on Probation will be dismissed. BACKGROUND The relevant facts

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 17 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-22-361 GEOFFERY BASHAM OPINION DELIVERED JANUARY 25, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V.

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 17 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-22-361 GEOFFERY BASHAM OPINION DELIVERED JANUARY 25, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO AGUIRRE BARBOSA, No. 15-72092 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A095-808-775 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney ORDER AND General, AMENDED Respondent.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO AGUIRRE BARBOSA, No. 15-72092 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A095-808-775 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-25-00509-CR Tania Smith, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 23CCR05728, THE HONORABLE JOHN MICHAEL MISCHTIAN, JUDGE PRESIDING ME MO RAN DU M O PI N I O N

BENJAMIN, Chief Justice: Petitioner Joshawa Clark, defendant below, appeals his first degree robbery and conspiracy convictions, for which he was sentenced to serve 52-60 years in prison for twice robbing the Marquee Cinemas in Huntington. Clark alleges that 1) his phone records were obtained in violation of his legitimate expectation of privacy guaranteed by Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution and thus, the evi

14‐2156‐cv Phillips v. City of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2014 (Argued: January 5, 2015 Decided: January 7, 2015) Docket No. 14‐2156‐cv ________________

PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs brought this action challenging on constitutional grounds New York State’s requirement that all children be vaccinated in order to attend public school. Plaintiffs argued that the statutory vaccination requirement, which is subject to medical and religious exemptions, violates their substantive due process rights, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourtee

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30006 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. Nos. v. 1:19-cr-02059-SAB-1 1:19-cr-02059-SAB MARC ANTHONY WILLY, Defendant-Appellee. OPINION Appeal from the Unit

Filed 11/18/22; Certified for Publication 12/19/22 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JAMES R. WHITLACH, F082322 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV-19-005627) v. PREMIER VALLEY, INC. et al.,

*1132 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel Specific Discovery, filed August 30, 2013 (Doc. 334) (“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on April 17, 2014. The primary issue is whether the Court should compel Plaintiff United States of Am