Cases

Petitioner was sentenced in 1987, 2000 and 2003 as a second felony offender to various terms of imprisonment upon his conviction of certain drug-related crimes. None of the relevant sentence and commitment orders or sentencing minutes made any mention of the manner in which the sentences imposed thereunder were to run relative to petitioner’s prior undischarged prison terms. Respondent Department of Correctional Services treated petitioner’s 2000 and 200

WOOD, Chief Judge. Since 1948, federal prisoners who contend that they were convicted or sentenced in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States have been required in most cases to present that claim through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion must be filed in the district of conviction. As a rule, the remedy afforded by section 2255 functions as an effective substitute for the writ of habeas corpus

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico's system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico ("BBANM"), and five New Mexico state legislators (the "Legislator Plaintiffs") allege that New Mexico's system of bail violates the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as well as the

413 F.3d 999 Clarence I. PAULSEN, III, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, of FCI Sheridan, Respondent-Appellant.Jeffrey D. Pullins, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.Dennis W. Bohner, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.Randolph Brown, Petitioner-Appellee,v.Charles A. Daniels, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.Jeremy E.

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner Anthony Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Jackson contends that his prison disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the loss of 27 days of good-time credits, violated his due process rights because he did

469 F.Supp.2d 903 (2007) George Scott KELLY, Petitioner, v. Charles DANIELS, Respondent. No. CIV. 06-1334-ST. United States District Court, D. Oregon. January 10, 2007. Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner. Karin J. Immergut, United States Attorney, James L. Sutherland, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland,

PER CURIAM. James Curtis brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming as relevant here that guards Percy Timberlake and Charles Jefferson violated his right to due process by assaulting him without provocation while he was a pretrial detainee at the Cook County jail in Chicago. A magistrate judge, presiding by consent, granted summary judgment for the guards, reasoning that Curt

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner James Broomfield appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm. For the reasons stated by the district court, petitioner has not shown that due process was violated in depriving

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner Anthony Jackson appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Jackson contends that his prison disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the loss of 27 days of good-time credits, violated his due process rights because he did

445 F.Supp.2d 1233 (2006) James Michael SNIDER, Petitioner, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, FCI Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent. No. CV 05 1269 HA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. August 15, 2006. Stephen R. Sady, Steven T. Wax, Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner. Herbert C. Sundby, Scott Erik Asphaug, United States Attorney's Office,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1093 MICHAEL GERALD GAMBOA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CHARLES DANIELS *, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court

JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge, concurring: It is hard to imagine a better example of how far we have strayed from the text and original understanding of the Constitution than this case. The First Amendment expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion-including the right of the Bishops to express their profound objection to the moral tragedy of abortion, by offering free burial services for fetal remains. By

459 F.Supp.2d 1053 (2006) Donald James ENGEL, Petitioner, v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent. No. 06-413 HA. United States District Court, D. Oregon. October 27, 2006. Stephen R. Sady, Lead Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner. Herbert C. Sundby, Lead Attorney,

KELLY, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Deuvontay Charles of two counts of sex trafficking by use of force, threat, fraud, or coercion; three counts of sex trafficking of a minor; twelve counts of producing child pornography of minors; two counts of receiving child pornography; and one count of commission of a felony offense involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender

5 N.Y.3d 738 (2005) 833 N.E.2d 704 800 N.Y.S.2d 369 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES DANIELS, Appellant. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BYRON ROBINSON, Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued April 26, 2005. Decided June 14, 2005.

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner Patrick J. O’Malley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habe-as corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. O’Malley contends that the district court erred by determining that the Bureau of Prisons properly found him ineligible for a early release under

MEMORANDUM ** Federal prisoner Patrick J. O’Malley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habe-as corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. O’Malley contends that the district court erred by determining that the Bureau of Prisons properly found him ineligible for a early release under

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Schuck, 913 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Ivory v. State, 898 So.2d 184, 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). THOMPSON, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

I The County decided to recognize the Stephenses' generosity and efforts by attaching their family name to the new library. The County also decided to honor Duwain E. Hughes by putting his name on the library's Audio Visual Department. Mindful of the MPA agreement with Hughes's heirs, the commissioners court also resolved that the $ 500,000 recovery from SMU was "not substantial enough" to name the li

480 F.Supp.2d 191 (2007) Charles DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-939(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 29, 2007. *192 Edgar Neville James, James & Hoffman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. *193