Cases

USCA11 Case: 19-14633 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 1 of 24 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14633 ____________________ MARIA TERESA PUPO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS

(Slip Opinion) Constitutionality of the Commissioner of Social Security’s Tenure Protection The President may remove the Commissioner of Social Security at will notwithstanding the statutory limitation on removal in 42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3). The conclusion that the removal restriction is constitutionally unenforceable does not affect the validity of the remainder of the statute. July 8, 2021

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEROY J. ROBBINS,  No. 04-35890 Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  D.C. No. CV-03-00615-ALH SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, OPINION Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JA’VONCE WARRE, on behalf of  E.T. IV, a minor child, No. 04-35778 Plaintiff-Appellant, v.  D.C. No. CV-03-01072-HO COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL OPINION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge. Appellant’s opening brief cites Rice v. Chater, No. 95-35604, 1996 WL 583605 (9th Cir. Oct.9, 1996). Rice is an unpub *1159 lished disposition, not reported in the Federal Reporter except as a one-line entry in a long table of cases

BROWNING, Circuit Judge: Sterling Widmark appeals a decision of the district court affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s (“Commissioner”) denial of benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Widmark, though severely impaired, had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) for the full range of light work. Widmark argues that, in reaching his decision, the ALJ rejected the medical opinion of an examining physici

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

OPINION OF THE COURT DEBEVOISE, Senior District Court Judge. Appellant, William R. Markle, appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) holding that Markle is not disabled and entitled to Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. We conclude

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

USCA11 Case: 21-13340 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 1 of 70 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals Hor the Eleventh Circuit No. 21-13340 BIDI VAPOR LLC, Petitioner, versus U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondents. USCA11 Case: 21-13340 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 2 of 70 2 Opinion of the Court 21-13340 Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Food and Dr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correct

ANTHONY A. v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION* (SC 19565) Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.** Syllabus The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the respondent Commissioner of Correction had incorrectly classified him as a sex offender without providing procedural due process as required under the federal constitution. The petitioner had been c

USCA11 Case: 21-11982 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/23/2023 Page: 1 of 35 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11982 ____________________ RALPH HARRISON BENNING,

USCA11 Case: 21-12314 Document: 131-1 Date Filed: 03/14/2025 Page: 1 of 169 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12314 ____________________ NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIAT

155 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 31183-15. Filed November 18, 2020. P, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, lo

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANA M. BAYLISS,  Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 04-35634 v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART,  D.C. No. CV-03-01431-AA COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY OPINION ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr