Cases

MEMORANDUM ** Petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per cu

594 F.3d 892 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CARLOS PINEDA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-41301. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 22, 2010. James Lee Turner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, TX, for U.S. Marjorie A. Meyers, Fed. Pub. Def., Philip G. Gallagher, Margaret Christina Ling, Asst. Fed. Pub. Defenders, Houst

*221MEMORANDUM *** Defendant Carlos Pineda-Lorenzana was convicted on one count of illegal reentry after deportation. He argues that the district court erred by (1) allowing the arresting agents to testify that he ran away from them and that the passengers riding in the van, including him, were illegal aliens; (2) admitting as evidence a certified fin

ROTHENBERG, J. The defendant, Graciela Pineda, appeals her convictions for lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious conduct on a child under sixteen years of age. The defendant claims that she is entitled to a new trial because the unobjected-to testimony of the lead investigator and the unobject-ed-to comments by the prosecuto

533 F.3d 50 (2008) Carlos PINEDA and Alexandra Perez, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Joseph TOOMEY and Joseph Watts, Defendants, Appellees. No. 07-2462. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard June 4, 2008. Decided July 16, 2008. Stephen B. Hrones, with whom Michael Tumposky and Hrones, Garrity & Hedges were on brief, for appellants.

MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Mario Pineda Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for *474review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595

PER CURIAM: Two of Norberto Pineda-Ortuno’s cases have been consolidated on appeal — his con*806viction for illegal reentry into the United States and revocation of his term of supervised release for a previous illegal reentry. Elsie Mae Miller, Pineda-Ortuno’s appointed counsel for both cases, in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw fr

MEMORANDUM ** Carlos Mario Pineda Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for *474review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 595

MEMORANDUM ** This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ fourth motion to reconsider the BIA’s October 7, 2004 decision dismissing petitioners’ appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal. We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. <

MEMORANDUM ** Juan Carlos Aguirre Pineda and Graciela Velazquez Tejeda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review petitioners’ due process challenges de novo, Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Madrigal-Pineda raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Eusebio Pineda-Hurtado appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 12-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Pineda-Hurtado contends that the supervised release revocation statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), violates Apprendi v. New *675

PER CURIAM.* Julian Geronimo-Pineda appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gerónimo contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense

656 F.Supp.2d 268 (2009) Juan Guillermo PINEDA, Plaintiff v. LOPITO, ILEANA & HOWIE, INC.; Digital Audiovisual Services, Inc.; Carlos Pepe Rodriguez, in his personal capacity and as the representative of the conjugal partnership constituted between Jane Doe and himself; ABC Insurance Company, Defendants. Civil No. 06-1397CCC. United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. Au

McBRYDE, District Judge: Appellants, Gilberto Pineda-Ortuno (“Pineda”) and Carlos Ramirez-Carranza (“Ramirez”), appeal from their convictions of (1) conspiracy to possess more than 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, (2) possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (3) car

Pineda v 525 SMA Owner LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 02468) Pineda v 525 SMA Owner LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 02468 Decided on May 09, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43

Pineda v 525 SMA Owner LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 02468) Pineda v 525 SMA Owner LLC 2023 NY Slip Op 02468 Decided on May 09, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 43

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-0824 Lower Tribunal No. 20-8206 ________________ Edgardo Pineda Hernandez, Appellant,

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered May 5, 2011, which granted the cross motion of the defendants Javar Corporation, Carlos Tab or da, and Sarabanda Night Club for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff allege

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered May 5, 2011, which granted the cross motion of the defendants Javar Corporation, Carlos Tab or da, and Sarabanda Night Club for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The plaintiff allege