Cases

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: Virginia law criminalizes the possession, purchase, or consumption of alcohol by someone who has been interdicted by a Virginia court. Interdiction is a civil order designating that a person is a "habitual drunkard" or has been convicted of driving while intoxicated. In this case, a group of homeless people suffering from alcoholism challenged the constitution

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ©FF1C2AL BUS8WES ^PO% STATE OF TEXAS . PENALTY FOR (4^ 2/4/2015 PRDVATEUSE FEB09 2015 MANNING, DONALD PATRICKS Tr^Ct.

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 OFFICIAL BUSINESS-MB**-,-.™— ESS 4^"*%* STATE ©F TEXAS^I PENALTY FOR A°>£ /. PITNCV BOWES

WILLIAMS, J. In this appeal, Christopher Manning (Manning) asserts the circuit court erred by (1) denying Manning’s motion to dismiss the case because the State violated section 56-5-2953 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) by failing to provide an affidavit of the arresting officer certifying that it was physically impossible to provide a video recording as required by the statute when Manning needed emergency medical t

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judges Motz and Keenan wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Gregory, and Judges King, Wynn, Floyd, Thacker, and Harris joined. Judge Keenan wrote a concurring opinion, in which Judges Motz and Thacker joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judges Niemeyer, Agee, Richardson, Quattlebaum, and Senior Judge Duncan joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a specially diss

LORETTA COPELAND BIGGS, District Judge: The government appeals the district court’s determination that the West Virginia criminal offense of unlawful wounding, W. Va. Code § 61-2-9 (a), is not a crime of violence under the force clause of § 4B1

PER CURIAM. Petitioner was arrested at 7:15 p.m. on July 12, 1998, for unlawfully driving in violation of the habitual traffic offender provision of section 322.34, Florida Statutes (1997). His plea here is that no probable cause determination was made in this case within the twenty-four (24) hours after the defendant was entitled to release, as provided under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(a)(4). The record suppor

*********************************************** 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

PER CURIAM. The order finding the petitioner in civil contempt and committing him to jail for his failure to pay past due child support is deficient on its face because, as the state concedes, the order does not contain a finding that petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount. See Chandler v. Manning, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D823, — So.2d -- (Fla. 3d DCA March 27, 1997); Betancourt v. Manning, 679 So.2d

PER CURIAM. Upon the respondent’s proper confession of error, the emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and the petitioner is to be released forthwith where there was insufficient evidence to support the lower court’s determination that the petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount in this civil contempt proceeding. See Johnson v. Felton, 655 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

PER CURIAM. Upon the conclusion that the evidence adduced below established that the standards of United States v. Nebbia, 357 F.2d 303 (2d Cir.1966) were satisfied as a matter of law, the trial court is ordered to require- the acceptance of the tendered $700,000.00 bond and thereupon to release the petitioner from custody. Habeas Corpus granted.

*794ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION GRANTED SORONDO, J. We grant petitioner’s motion for clarification, -withdraw our previous opinion and substitute it with the following: Upon the state’s proper confession of error we grant the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On July 2, 1998, a hearing was conducted in this case

PER CURIAM. The order finding the petitioner in civil contempt and committing him to jail for his failure to pay past due child support is deficient on its face because, as the state concedes, the order does not contain a finding *1368that petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount. See Chandler v. Manning, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D823, — So.2d - [1997 W

PER CURIAM. Because, as the respondent jailer apparently concedes, the record not only does not support, but is directly contrary to the trial court’s pro forma finding that the petitioner, who is incarcerated pursuant to an order of civil contempt for his failure to pay child support, has the present ability to pay the purge amount, the petition for Habeas Corpus is granted with directions that he forthwith be discharged fr

PER CURIAM. Because, as the respondent jailer apparently concedes, the record not only does not support, but is directly contrary to the trial court’s pro forma finding that the petitioner, who is incarcerated pursuant to an order of civil contempt for his failure to pay child support, has the present ability to pay the purge amount, the petition for Habeas Corpus is granted with directions that he forthwith be discharged fr

PER CURIAM. On May 22,1998, C.S., the indigent mother of an allegedly dependent child, filed an application for habeas corpus which asserted that, earlier that day, she had been taken into custody by the trial court on a $2,500 bond merely in order to assure her appearance at a psychologist’s examination four *1027days later.1 Within an

PER CURIAM. Upon the filing of the emergency petition for writ of Habeas Corpus, we ordered the petitioner released forthwith on his own recognizance. The jailer has now filed a response in which he admits that Campbell’s conviction and imprisonment for indirect criminal contempt based on his failure to pay child support, which followed a trial at which he purportedly waived counsel below, are constitutionally invalid beca

PER CURIAM. The state correctly concedes that the record does not support the court’s finding that the petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount. Bowen v. Bowen 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985). We grant the petition for habeas corpus and order petitioner s release forthwith. On remand, the court may conduct further appropriate proceedings. Habeas corpus granted; cause remanded.

PER CURIAM. After an abbreviated hearing, the trial court concluded that the defendant had procured the absence of the crime victim, his wife, from the jurisdiction so that she could not be served with a witness subpoena. Such conduct would, of course, constitute the crime of tampering with a witness, see § 914.22, Fla.Stat. (1995), and would violate the conditions of pretrial release. See id.; § 903.047(

SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellant, federal prisoner Roger Charles Day, Jr., initiated this action by a pro se petition in the United States District Court, seeking relief by way of writ from what he alleged to be an illegally imposed sentence. The petition is self-described as “pursuant to” various sections of the United States Code and Constitution,