Cases

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Order filed February 27, 2018 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-18-00064-CV ____________ MONICA FLORES JOHNSON, Appellant V. DAVIS HARDEN, Appellee On Appeal from the 250th District Court

PER CURIAM: * Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves for authorization to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) following the dismissal of his complaint for failure to pay a previously imposed monetary sanction. Because Flores raises only fanciful allegations and fails to dispute that he has an outstanding monetary sanction, he has failed to show that he should be allowe

DAVIS, Justice. [¶1] Michael Flores appeals from his conviction for interfering with a peace officer under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-5-204(b) (Lexis-Nexis 2017),1 which provides that “[a] person who intentionally and knowingly causes or attempts to cause bodily injury to a peace officer engaged in the lawful performance of his duties is guilty of a felony[.]” He asks only wh

The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *1146I. INTRODUCTION On August 12, 2016, Plaintiffs Jenny L. Flores and other class members filed a motion to enforce the parties' 19-year-old consent decree1 ("the Flores Agreemen

ORDER RE RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. ” —Mahatma Gandhi On February 2, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce th

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [100,120] Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION The original complaint in this action was filed on July 11, 1985. [Doc. # 1.] On January 28, 1997, the Court approved a class-wide set

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Bobby Joe Flores 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). Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record ref

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Bobby Joe Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 886 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). Flores has not filed a re- ' sponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record r

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Shirley Flores 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). Flores has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief *

VOIGT, Justice, dissenting. [¶ 4] I respectfully dissent because I be-Heve this Court's decision in Brown v. City of Casper, 2011 WY 35, 248 P.3d 1136 (Wyo.2011) is wrong and should not, therefore, form the basis for an opinion in this case. See Brown, ¶¶ 57-59, at 1150 (Voigt, J., dissenting). Furthermore, I believe that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-89-114 (LexisNexis 2009) is a jurisdictional statute of limitations

PER CURIAM: * Ramon Amador-Flores (Amador), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order in which the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Amador’s motion for a continuance and dismissed his appeal from the IJ’s removal order. The IJ found that Amador was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(6)(A)(i) as an alien who was present in the United St

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Rafael Flores-Jar-quin 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). Flores-Jarquin has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. <

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin Flores appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Unite

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Flores-Jimenez 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). Flores-Jimenez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and t

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge: The question in this case is whether an alien convicted of recklessly possessing with the intent to deliver at least ten pounds of marijuana for remuneration has engaged in “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” such that he is an aggravated felon and is therefore ineligible for relief from removal. We answer in the affirmative and DENY t

OPINION Opinion by Judge REINHARDT: In this case we apply the straightforward tools of statutory construction in order to determine what the statutes before us are designed to do and not do. In performing this task we, of course, start by examining the words of the statutes. We then look to the statutes’ clear purpose and intent. Specifically, we ask whet