Cases

OPINION WECHSLER, Judge. {1} Defendant Peter Chavez appeals his convictions for the crimes of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer (aggravated fleeing), contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1.1 (2003), and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-22-1(B) (1981). Defendan

HADLOCK, C. J., dissenting. The majority has comprehensively and accurately reviewed the Oregon case law related to the admissibility of scientific evidence. See 286 Or App at 595-605.1 have no quarrel with its description of the cases and the fundamental principles that they establish. However, I disagree with the majority’s application of that law to the facts of this case. Accordingly, I respectfull

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to 300 months in prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $1,600 in court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, defendant challenges his convictions and the court’s imposition of attorney fees. We reject defendant’s challenge to his convictions without discussion and write only to address defendant’s second assignment of error, which concer

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of two counts of attempted first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 161.405, and two counts of private indecency, ORS 163.467. On appeal, defendant raises several assignments of error. We reject without discussion defendant’s third assignment of error, in which he contends that the trial court erred in denying his “motion to exclude his statements” to an officer on the grounds that

MEMORANDUM ** Jose Jesus Perez-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 21-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Perez-Chavez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motio

210 P.3d 259 (2009) 229 Or. App. 1 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reynaldo CHAVEZ, Defendant-Respondent. 0500422CR; A134240. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted March 26, 2009. Decided June 10, 2009. *260 Susan G. Howe, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the c

260 P.3d 667 (2011) 244 Or. App. 339 STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cesar David COLMENARES-CHAVEZ, aka Juan Hernandezgarcia, aka Juan Hernandez-Garcia, aka Cesar Colmenares-Chavez, aka Cesar David Colmemares-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant. 071034868; A139539. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted December 16, 2010. Dec

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992(4)(b) (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840(3)(b) (2005). She assigns error to the admission of a laboratory report in violation of her right to confront witnesses under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes the error and agrees that the case should be reversed and rem

567 F.3d 1096 (2009) Eduardo TORRES-CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-72226. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 10, 2009. Filed June 5, 2009. *1098 Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for the petitioner-appellant. Peter D. Kies

PER CURIAM Affirmed. State v. Brown, 200 Or App 427, 115 P3d 254 (2005).

PER CURIAM Affirmed. State v. McCoin, 190 Or App 532, 79 P3d 342 (2003).

*777Justice Souter delivered an opinion, Part II of which is the opinion of the Court and Part I of which is an opinion concurring in the judgment.* t — < Respondent Martinez s claim under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for violation of his privilege against compelled self-incrimination should be rejected and his

MEMORANDUM*** *896Ladislado Mendoza-Chavez appealed the district court’s denial of his § 2241 habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Meanwhile, the REAL ID Act was enacted, which requires transfer of cases challenging final orders of removal that are pending in district courts to the court of appeals. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13,

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * TACHA, Chief 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. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff-appellant Gregory Dean B

OPINION PER CURIAM. Franklin Chavez and Teresita Victoria Vizueta Vanegas, husband and wife, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”), which dismissed their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final removal order. For the following reasons, we will deny the petition for review. Chavez and his wife arrived in the United States as visitors

OPINION VIGIL, Judge. {1} This case requires us to decide whether a Joint Powers Agreement (the JPA) between the County of Bernalillo (the County) and the City of Albuquerque (the City) for the operation of the Metropolitan Detention Center (the MDC) was properly terminated by the City. The district court determined that it was, granting the City’s motion for summary ju

PER CURIAM: Francisco Chavez timely appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on March 21, 2000 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge). He contends that his thirty-month sentence of imprisonment should be vacated, because the offense to which he pleaded guilty — importation of heroin in viola

Filed 12/10/24 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE JORGE CHAVEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A167658 v. CALIFORNIA COLLISION, LLC, et (Alameda County al., Super. Ct. Nos. RG17865765,

[Cite as State v. Peters, 2023-Ohio-4362.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 14-22-21 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. STEVEN PETERS, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Union County Common Pleas Court

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: This Copyright/Lanham Act case has once again been remanded, this time by this Court sitting en banc, for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199, 144 L.Ed.2d 575 (1999) and College Savings Bank v.