Cases

*337Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention), Apr. 24, 1963, [1970] 21 U. S. T. 77, 100-101, T. I. A. S. No. 6820, addresses communication between an individual and his consular officers when the in

PHILIP R. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On this day, the Court considered Defendant City of El Paso's [hereinafter "Defendant"] "Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint" (ECF No. 22) [hereinafter "Motion"], filed on June 29, 2017, Plaintiffs Celia Sanchez and Oscar Salas's [hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"] "Response to Defendant City of El Paso's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss" (ECF No

ACCEPTED 01-14-0884-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge: Petitioner J. Gumaro Sanchez Zermeno (“Zermeno”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. We DENY the petition. I. On

Appellate Case: 25-2009 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 04/21/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 21, 2026

Madsen, J. (dissenting) — I agree with the majority that the Investigating Officer (IO) in Sanchez’s case has a statutory role in a sentencing hearing. I disagree, however, with the majoritys conclusion that Investigating Officers and Community Corrections Officers (CCO) are entitled to make sentencing recommendations which undermine a plea agreement negotiated by the defendant and the prosecutor as the representative of the Stat

46 P.3d 774 (2002) 146 Wash.2d 339 STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Librado SANCHEZ, Petitioner. State of Washington, Respondent, v. Mark Harris, Petitioner. Nos. 70331-1, 70442-2. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued May 22, 2001. Decided May 9, 2002. As Amended May 13, 2002.

EDMONDSON, Chief Judge: In this consolidated appeal, Larry Wad-dell, as personal representative of Kristina Waddell’s estate, Erik Hemerson, and Gary Wheeler (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Hendry County Sheriffs Office, Sheriff Ronnie Lee, Jr., and Lieutenant Susan Sibbald (“Defendants”) in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintif

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-10-00269-CV FREDERICK ALONGI AND SHERRY L. ALONGI, Appellants v. ALEXA MICHELLE SCOTT MOSTELLER, BRONWYN SUZETTE SCOTT WALKER AND ERIK SHAWN SCOTT, Appellees From the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YVONNE DALTON, individually and  on behalf of all others similarly situated; DIAN GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ARMINDA GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SHARON HUGHEN, individually and on behalf of all No. 10-80159 others similarly situated; ETELVINA SALGADO, individually and on D.C. N

Sutton, J. ¶1 Erik Petterson appeals the superior court’s order granting the Department of Corrections’ (Department) motion to modify the conditions of Petterson’s sentence under the special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) and reinstating the condition that Petterson comply with conditions imposed by the Department.1 Here, Petterson’s community custody conditions were erroneously modified

Chief Judge Rubén Castillo *1070Daniel L. Ayotte ("Plaintiff") filed this action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging claims against a host of defendants, including The Boeing Company ("Boeing"), arising from his exposure to asbestos. (R. 1-1, Compl.) Boeing removed the action to this Court. (R. 1, Notice of Removal.) Before the Court is Plaintiff'

In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: April 24, 2020 To be published ************************* * MICHAEL BAILEY JR., Administrator of * the Estate of MICHAEL BAILEY SR., * No. 15-1417V * Petitioner, *

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as M.R. v. Niesen, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-1130.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or

Schnier v New York State Thruway Auth. (2022 NY Slip Op 03267) Schnier v New York State Thruway Auth. 2022 NY Slip Op 03267 Decided on May 18, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursu

653 F.Supp.2d 855 (2009) PREMIUM PLUS PARTNERS, L.P., Plaintiff, v. Peter J. DAVIS, Jr., et al., Defendants. No. 04 C 1851. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. August 6, 2009. *860 Harry Rothenberg, Law Offices of Allen Rothenberg, New York, NY, Anthony F. Fata, Christopher B. Sanchez, Dominic J. Rizzi,

439 B.R. 231 (2010) In re PHOENIX DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Debtor. Kenneth A. Welt, Chapter 7 Trustee of Phoenix Diversified Investment Corporation, Plaintiff, v. EfloorTrade, LLC; John Moore, individually; Kyle H. Kelley, individually; Kelley Goldberg Leach and Cohn, P.L.; and CCIP Orlando, Ltd., LLC, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 08-15917-EPK. Adversary No. 10-03113-EPK. United States Ban

WILLHITE, J. *696Defendant James Roth pleaded no contest to, and was convicted of, second degree burglary ( Pen. Code,1 § 459 ), a felony, based upon his entry into a storage locker with the intent to commit larceny. The trial court imposed sentence, but suspended execution and placed defendant on probation. His pro

Leigh Martin May, United States District Judge This case comes before the Court on Defendants IDT Corporation and IDT Telecom, Inc.'s ("Defendants") Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations. Dkt. No. [15]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought this Class Action Complaint on behalf of himself and ot

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 20 2019, 8:51 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral