Cases

PER CURIAM. Marlon Fleming was granted a belated appeal to address the summary denial of his latest motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm as to all issues addressed in the order. But, as the State concedes, a remand is necessary so that the trial court can address an overlooked portion of Fleming’s motion. Fleming committed a number

BENTON, C.J., dissenting. The last time this case was before us— noting the state conceded error as to all four grounds cited for upward departure— we reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing, without considering any question of harmless error. See Fleming v. State, — So.3d —, 2006 WL 1041164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). In his initial brief, filed with this court on October 18, 2005, Mr. Fleming argued that the

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Douglas P. Fleming, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 59144, 59145, 59146 ) 59147, 59148,59158 ) 59159, 59182, 59183 ) 59229, 59274,59275 )

PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his sentence entered after resentencing pursuant to the 1994 sentencing guidelines, alleging that the trial court scored 40 points for severe victim injury without a jury finding, and made an upward departure based in part on three grounds found by the trial court and not the jury in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and Blakel

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Douglas P. Fleming, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 59144, 59145, 59146 ) 59147,59148,59158 ) 59159,59182,59183 ) 59229,59

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT. MILLETT, Circuit Judge: Speech-generating devices assist individuals with severe communication impairments by “speaking” typed messages out loud. Appellants Douglas B. Huron and the United States Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (the “Society”) filed this action against the Of

BYE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from Part IV of the majority opinion because I believe the Lenders’ arguable loss of their Code-based defenses to the Trustee’s avoidance action makes them “persons aggrieved” by the bankruptcy court’s substantive consolidation order. I therefore believe they have standing to appeal. A few additional facts are necessary to explain the impact of the substa

BYE, Circuit Judge. Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C., and other appellants (collectively, Ritchie) objected to an allocation of proceeds derived from a settlement between Douglas A. Kelley, in his capacity as Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee of Petters Company, Inc. (PCI), and VICIS Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (VICIS). The bankruptcy court

326 S.C. 49 (1997) 483 S.E.2d 751 Todd Douglas FLEMING, individually and by his next friend, Kenneth L. Fleming, Plaintiff, v. Mary Ann ASBILL, Defendant. No. 24594. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard June 4, 1996. Decided March 31, 1997. *51 Calvin A. Rouse, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO . 11-0778 444444444444 THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, PETITIONER, v. ROGER BATES, MICHAEL L. SPRATT AND DOUGLAS SPRINGER, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON

529 F.3d 631 (2008) FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWBY & TITTLE Defendants, Represented by Liaison Counsel; Robert A. Belfer; Norman P. Blake, Jr.; Ronnie C. Chan; Wendy L. Gramm, M.D.; Robert K. Jaedicke; Charles A. Lemaistre; Joe H. Foy; Bruce G. Wilson; John Mendelson; Paulo V. Ferraz Pereira; Frank Savage; Herbert S. Winokur, Jr.; Jerome J. Meyer; John A. Urquhart; Charles E. Walker; John Wakeham, Defendants-Appellees

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN S. ANDERSON, Justice. The City of Houston, appellant, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of appel-lees, Roger Bates, Michael L. Spratt, and Douglas Springer, following a bench trial. We affirm. Factual and PROCEDURAL Background The key facts of this case are undisputed. Houst

[Cite as State v. Fleming, 2022-Ohio-3158.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-61 : v.

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) GILLISPIE V. FLEMING NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). MICHAEL J. GILLISPIE, APPELLANT, V.

[Cite as State v. Fleming, 2022-Ohio-1876.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-40 : v.

20-1776-cr United States v. Fleming In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term, 2020 No. 20-1776-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. WARREN

Mason Fleming was indicted for the possession of marijuana in violation of § 20-2-70, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found him "guilty of possession of marijuana as charged" and following a sentencing hearing the trial court sentenced him to three years in the penitentiary. On March 3, 1984, Deputies Bill Goodson and Wayne Lucas of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department discovered marijuana beneath a pine tree adjacent to appellant's propert

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 122,895 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MONDALE LE'ON DOUGLAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The doctrine of invited error precludes a party f

ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION SUSAN G. BRADEN, Chief Judge Between September 5, 2017 and October 5, 2017, forty-six complaints were filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging Takings Clause claims in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ten of those forty-six complaints are putative class action lawsuits. See Y And J

ORDER SUSAN G. BRADEN, Chief Judge Between September 5, 2017 and October 5, 2017, forty-six complaints were filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging Takings Clause claims in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ten of those forty-six complaints are putative class action lawsuits. See Y And J Properties, LTD v. United Sta