Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Kailing v. United States”
United States v. Kailingpublic domain
ORDER * The appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their motions to dismiss count I of the indictment, which alleges that they conspired to defraud the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court’s orders denying these motions to dismiss are not final orders appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United, States, 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S.Ct.
Kailing v. Floridapublic domain
Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Kailing v. Floridapublic domain
543 U.S. 866 KAILINGv.FLORIDA. No. 03-11061. Supreme Court of United States. October 4, 2004. 1 Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 859 So. 2d 1206.
Kailing v. Hendricksonpublic domain
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Kailing v. Hendricksonpublic domain
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Hawaii State Federal Credit Union v. Kailingpublic domain
MEMORANDUM** Melville and Letitia Turner appeal pro se the district court’s deficiency judgment for the United States in an action brought by the United States to reduce the Turners’ income tax assessments to judgment, to set aside a transfer of certain real property, and to foreclose federal tax liens against the real property in satisfaction of the tax debt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W
United States v. Damon Joinerpublic domain
OPINION BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In 2007, defendant-appellant Damon Joiner pled guilty to distribution and possession, with intent to distribute, of 129.77 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and (b)(1)(B). Although Joiner was subject to a 240-month statutory minimum penalty, the government moved for a down
United States v. Traficantpublic domain
209 F.Supp.2d 764 (2002) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. James A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Defendant. No. 4:01CR207. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. June 25, 2002. *765 Craig S. Morford, AUSA, Bernard A. Smith, AUSA, Matthew B. Kall, AUSA, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff. James A. Traficant, Jr., You
United States v. Conleypublic domain
OPINION OF THE COURT GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Factual Background John F. Conley appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered in this criminal case involving gambling and money laundering on September 29, 1995. This ease requires us to determine the constitutionality of section lB1.2(d) of the Unit
United States v. Ralph M. Daniel, Jr.public domain
OPINION ROGERS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Ralph M. Daniel, Jr. (“Daniel”) of one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Daniel now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence of a “scheme” to defraud, or of his intent to defraud, or of a wire communication in furtherance of the scheme. Daniel also contends that the district
United States v. Conleypublic domain
92 F.3d 157 UNITED STATES of Americav.John F. "Duffy" CONLEY; William C. Curtin; Sheila F.Smith; John Francis "Jack" Conley; Thomas "Bud" McGrath;Mark A. Abbott; Thomas Rossi; William Steinhart; RobertaFleagle; Robin Spratt; Monica C. Kail; William J. Reed;Joanne T. Smith; Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin; Lawrence N."Neudy" Demino, Sr.; Christopher "Chris" Kail; Joseph A.Devita; Frank Garofalo; Thomas D. Ciocco
United States v. Conleypublic domain
878 F.Supp. 751 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip
United States v. Conleypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEE, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant John F. “Duffy” Conley’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document No. 832). In prior proceedings, the Court suppressed evidence of statements made by John F. “Duffy” Conley (“Duffy Conley”) on October 30, 1989. The Court concluded that, under the applicable law, the statements were unconstitutionally coerced statements in violation of the
United States v. Conleypublic domain
37 F.3d 970 UNITED STATES of America, Appellantv.John F. "Duffy" CONLEY; William C. Curtin; Sheila Smith;John Francis "Jack" Conley; Thomas "Bud" McGrath; Mark A.Abbott; Thomas Rossi; William Steinhart; Roberta Fleagle;Robin Spratt; Monica C. Kail; William J. Reed; Joanne T.Smith; Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin; Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino,Sr.; Christopher "Chris" Kail; Joseph A. Devita; FrankGarofalo; Thomas D
United States v. Conleypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEE, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are numerous motions raising issues relating to the federal searches conducted on December 19, 1989: John Francis “Jack” Conley’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion: Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [1989 searches] (Document No. 374, in part); Pretrial Motions of John F. “Duffy” *
United States v. Conleypublic domain
856 F.Supp. 1034 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip
United States v. Conleypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEE, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant John F. “Duffy” Conley’s challenge to the July 19, *8651990 searches of certain premises, ment No. 377, in part). (Doeu- Defendant John F. “Duffy” Conley (“Duffy Conley”) has limited standing to challenge the warrants pursuant to which the July 1990 searches an
United States v. Conleypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LEE, District Judge. Before the Court are the Pretrial Motions Filed on behalf of Defendant Phillip M. “Mike” Ferrell: Motion to Suppress Evidence (Document No. 379, in part), and Pretrial Motions Filed on behalf of Defendant Phillip M. “Mike” Ferrell: Motion to Return Seized Property. (Document No. 379, in part). Defendant Ferrell’s motion to suppress relates to the October 1,1991 sear
United States v. Conleypublic domain
859 F.Supp. 909 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip
United States v. Conleypublic domain
859 F.Supp. 887 (1994) UNITED STATES of America v. John F. "Duffy" CONLEY, William C. Curtin, Sheila F. Smith, John Francis "Jack" Conley, Thomas "Bud" McGrath, Mark A. Abbott, Thomas Rossi, William Steinhart, Roberta Fleagle, Robin Spratt, Monica C. Kail, William J. Reed, Joanne T. Smith, Kenneth "Ron" Goodwin, Lawrence N. "Neudy" Demino, Sr., Christopher "Chris" Kail, Joseph A. Devita, Frank Garofalo, Thomas D. Ciocco, Michael Sukaly, Phillip M