Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Eugene I. Davis, as Trustee Of the GTAT Litigation Trust, the Duly authorized successor to GT Advanced Technologies Inc., et al. v. Civil No. 17-cv-147-JL Opinion No. 2018 DNH 063 Thomas Gutierrez and Daniel W. Squiller MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves the actions (and lack thereof) of t

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge Plaintiff Carlos Davila is the founder of A New Beginning for Immigrant's Rights, Inc. ("A New Beginning"), an immigrants' rights organization. Through A New Beginning, Davila participated in the Department of Justice's Recognition and Accreditation Program, which permitted him to represent individuals in immigration proceedings as a non-attorney. In 2017, several news outlets reported

14 So.3d 1250 (2009) Lourdes Rosario GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. Raul Juan GUTIERREZ, Appellee. No. 3D08-1963. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. July 1, 2009. Rehearing Denied August 6, 2009. Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto, Joseph P. Klock, Jr., and Juan Carlos Antorcha, for appellant. Astigarraga Davi

Memorandum Decision PEARCE, Judge: 1 Sacramento Gutierrez appeals from the district court's decision to terminate his probation for a theft conviction and to impose the previously suspended prison sentence upon him. He argues that the district court erred because he had not violated a term of that probation. Gutierres failed to present this argument to t

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent William Gutierrez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions

PER CURIAM. In this marital dissolution case, the long-term marriage of Appellant Carol Preu-dhomme (“Former Wife”) and Appellee Luis Gutierrez (“Former Husband”) was dissolved by final judgment, in which the trial court adopted the report of the general magistrate for a parenting plan, equitable distribution, the marital home, child support, alimony, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Former Wife appealed the various determinat

OPINION TOM GRAY, Chief Justice. Adam Gutierrez was charged with and convicted of robbing Juan and Jose Dela-Rosa and using a deadly weapon to commit that offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.08(a)(2) (West 2011). He was sentenced to life in prison for each count. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Humberto Avalos-Gutierrez *132raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 533, 193 L.Ed.2d 426 (2015). In Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204-05, we held that an

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: An Immigration Judge ordered that Petitioner Orlando Gutierrez be removed from the United States.1 Gutierrez appealed the Immigration Judge’s removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed the appeal. Gutierrez now petitions this Court for review of the BIA’s order. He claims that he is not subject to removal because

172 P.3d 18 (2007) STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Mardoqueo GUTIERREZ, Appellant. No. 94,317. Supreme Court of Kansas. December 7, 2007. *20 Korey A. Kaul, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant. Nicholas J. Heiman, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Amy L. Ara

MEMORANDUM ** Norberto Corona Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to

MEMORANDUM ** Norberto Corona Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS MARIBEL F. GUTIERREZ, NICOLE D. § GUTIERREZ, ASHLEY MARIE No. 08-21-00077-CV GUTIERREZ, OMAR HECTOR § GUTIERREZ, JR., as Representatives of Appeal from the

PER CURIAM: * *386Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Moises Montalvo-Gutierrez 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 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Governmen

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 31, 2019 NO. 03-18-00474-CV Herbert Feist, Appellant v. David Gutierrez, Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Lorie Davis, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Appellees APPEAL FROM THE 353R

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00474-CV Herbert Feist, Appellant v. David Gutierrez, Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Lorie Davis, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Appellees FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-17-004316, T

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Defendant Arturo Gutierrez-Ramirez (Gutierrez-Ramirez) challenges a 16-level enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction for a “drug trafficking offense” as authorized by § 2L1.2 (b)(l)(A)(i) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). We conclude that the district court erred in. using a California abstract of judgment

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 606 U. S. Part 1 Pages 305–356 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 26, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So.2d 702, 705 (Fla.1998); Berne v. Beznos, 819 So.2d 235, 237-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).