Cases

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4684 Doc: 51 Filed: 02/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MOISES ORLANDO ZELAYA-VELIZ, a/k/a Moises Zelaya-Beliz, Moizes Zelaya Bonilla, a/k

NUMBER 13-20-00064-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG JOSE ROBERTO VELIZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 63rd District Court

MEMORANDUM * Plaintiffs, “Service Sales Representatives,” appeal the district court’s dismissal of their Tenth Claim for Relief for alleged violations of the Michigan Minimum Wage Law (“MMWL”) asserted against their employer, defendant Cintas Corporation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court entered a final judgment dismissing the Tenth Claim for Relief pursuant to Federal

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4659 Doc: 52 Filed: 02/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MOISES ORLANDO ZELAYA-VELIZ, a/k/a Moises Zelaya-Beliz, Moizes Zelaya Bonilla, a/k

J.M. Johnson, J. ¶32 (dissenting) — The majority errs by unnecessarily limiting the definition of “court-ordered parenting plan” under RCW 9A.40.060(2) to documents created pursuant to chapter 26.09 RCW. I would affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that when RCW 26.50.060 orders contain residential provisions for minor children, they are “court-ordered parenting plants].” Accordingly, a violation of a domestic violence protection

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4656 Doc: 60 Filed: 02/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 39 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-4656 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. MOISES ORLANDO ZELAYA-VELIZ, a/k/a Moises Zelaya-Beliz, Moizes Zelaya Bonilla, a/k

¶1 Jose R. Veliz Jr. appeals his conviction for custodial interference in the first degree, imposed after he took his four-year-old daughter out of the country for four months in violation of his wife’s rights under an order for protection. He challenges his conviction on the basis that an order for protection does not constitute a “court-ordered parenting plan” within the meaning of the statute establishing felony custodial interference; that even if suc

FILE·,., IN CLERKS OFFICI • IUPR!'!ME COURT, STATE OF ~II«J'RRt DATE MAR 0120\3. I -~~ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 85860-8 v. ) ) En Bane

247 P.3d 833 (2011) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Jose R. VELIZ, Jr., Appellant. No. 28495-6-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3. March 8, 2011. *834 George Paul Trejo, Jr., The Trejo Law Firm, Yakima, WA, for Appellant. David Wayne Corkrum, Attorney at Law, Maureen R. Lorincz, Franklin County Prosecutor'

NUMBER 13-22-00484-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG JOSE JUNIOR LINCOLN A/K/A JOSE LINCOLN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 404th District Court

313 F.Supp.2d 1317 (2003) David VELIZ, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Felipe Valdivia Ignacio, Plaintiff, v. RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION USA, INC., and Trak International, Inc. as successor by interest to Lull International, Inc., Defendants. No. 6:02-CV-1335-ORL-22DAB. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. December 19, 2003.

FILED JULY 9, 2015 In the Office of the Clerk of Court W A State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

639 F.3d 1191 (2011) Oswaldo Enrique TOBAR; Rosa Carmelina Zambrano Lucas; Junior Ivan Pico Alava; Segundo Matias Zambrano Alonzo; Francisco Gabriel Yole Arteago; Fausto Lupercio Arias Castaneda; Frabricio Bayron Cedeno; Joffre Johnny Cedeno Cedeno; Lindon Cleofe Cedeno Cedeno; Ramon Eliades Ramon Velez Cedeno; Daniel David Quimi Chalen; Pablo Eduardo Lucas Conforme; Ramon Eduardo Pilligua Conforme; Ciro Mariano Lopez *1192<

111 F.Supp.2d 571 (2000) UNITED STATES v. Santos GOMEZ No. Crim.A. 98-362-07. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 14, 2000. Arnold R. Silverstein, Wilson & Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA, Robert E. Welsh, Jr., Lisa A. Mathewson, Welsh & Recker, Philadelphia, PA, for Roberto Gonzalez. Jonathan Sobel, Law Offices Benjamine S. Friedman

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: Patrolling in international waters, the United States Coast Guard suspected the crew of an Ecuadorian fishing boat of illicit activities. With the authorization of Ecuadorian authorities, the Coast Guard boarded the boat, searched for drugs, and towed the boat to Ecuador. The Ecuadorian crew, who are Plaintiffs here, allege

Siddoway, C.J. ¶1 The superior court in this case held that the Department of Labor and Industries was without authority to assess Jose Birrueta for an overpayment of time-loss benefits and to change his marital status for compensation purposes under RCW 51.32.240. This was because Mr. Birrueta’s marital status had been determined in a 2008 notice of decision by the department that had become final under RCW 51.52.050. In so hol

Yu, J. ¶1 After the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) learned it had been overpaying respondent Jose Birrueta’s industrial insurance benefits for years, it issued two orders, one assessing an overpayment and another changing Birrueta’s status from married to unmarried for compensation purposes. Because Birrueta was overpaid due solely to an innocent misrepresentation about his marital status made on his behalf, we

Opinion TURNER, P. J. I. INTRODUCTION A jury convicted two brothers, defendants, Jose and David Vega, of two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 192, subd. (a)) (counts 1 and 2). In addition, defendants were each convicted of a single count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246) (count 3). The jury found the crimes were co

Case: 24-60592 Document: 106-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 14, 2026

Case: 24-60592 Document: 91-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 14, 2026