Cases

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Victor Lizama is a federal prisoner who was transferred to the United States from Mexico to continue serving a Mexican sentence for “Simple Homicide.” The United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) determined a release date for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A(b)(1)(A). Petitio

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

MEMORANDUM ** Frank Lebito Lizama appeals from the 90-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), use of an unauthorized access *641device causing an act to be done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) and 18 U.S.

629 F.3d 440 (2011) Carlos LIZAMA, a/k/a Lizama Meija, a/k/a Carlos Alberto, a/k/a Edgar Ortez, a/k/a Adiel Edgar, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 09-2027. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: October 26, 2010. Decided: January 19, 2011. *442 ARGUED: Ricky

MEMORANDUM2 Defendant Alejandro Lizama contends that the district court erred by sentencing him to one year in prison without conducting a hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244(a). Section 4244 hearings are meant to determine if a convicted person suffering from a mental disease or defect should be hospitalized for treatment instead of imprisoned. A hearing is required when the district court has “reasonable

MEMORANDUM ** Raphael Lizama-Sanchez (“Lizama-San-chez”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We affirm. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision. Lizama-Sanchez has not shown that his trial counsel performed ineffectively or prej

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1702 ___________________________ Abraham Lizama, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC; Vi

NO. 07-08-0294-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 11, 2009 ______________________________

DUNCAN, J. In this declaratory judgment action, defendants Felix and Jorge Torres-Lizama appeal a judgment declaring that they were not employed by plaintiff, Cejas Commercial Interiors, Inc., within the meaning of Oregon’s minimum-wage law, ORS 653.025.1 Defendants contend that plaintiff, a drywall contractor, was their employer while they did dry wall work that plaintiff had subcontracted to View

NO. 07-08-0294-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 11, 2009 ______________________________ SALVADORE A. LIZAMA, APPELLANT

NO. 07-08-0294-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 11, 2009 ______________________________ SALVADORE A. LIZAMA, APPELLANT V. T

759 So.2d 865 (2000) Virginia Lisua LIZAMA, Remeaid Lisua Celisa and Nicanor Lisua v. Johnnie E. WILLIAMS and His Liability Insurance Carrier, Government Employees Ins. Co. No. 99-CA-1040. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit. March 22, 2000. *866 Robert R. Faucheux, LaPlace, Louisiana, Counsel for plaintiffs-appellees.

OPINION VILLAGOMEZ, Justice: I. PROCEEDING BELOW On June 20, 1991, the CNMI government ("Government’’) charged defendant Isidro R. Lizama ("Lizama") with the crimes of importing crystal methamphetamine (a drug commonly referred to as "ice") into *403the Commonwealth under 6 CMC § 2301(a) and possession of con

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Juan"T. Lizama and Jesus T. Lizama, filed this action on August 28, 1985, alleging that defendant, Jose S. Rios, individually and as the Mayor of Saipan, was interfering with their right to a certain parcel of real property referred to as'the "Hyatt Lot." . Rios counterclaimed, against the Lizamas and the Marianas Public Land Corporation (MPLC) alleging that the counter-defendants had conspired to deprive Rios

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, Juan T. Lizama and Jesus T. Lizama, filed a complaint on August 28, 1985, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that defendant, Jose S. Rios, individually and as the Mayor of Saipan, was interfering with their right to possess Lot 001 D 27 (hereinafter the "Hyatt lot") in violation of the fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On October 17, 1985, Rios counterclaimedi1

DECISION Plaintiffs, Juan T. Lizama and Jesus T. Lizama, brought this suit pursuant to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter § 1983) alleging that defendant, Jose S. Rios, the Mayor of Saipan, unconstitutionally deprived them of their property without due process of law and under color of law. Rios counterclaimed against the Lizama brothers and third party defendant- Marianas *409. P

HULL, Circuit Judge: After a jury trial, Dr. Najam Azmat was convicted of 1 count of conspiracy to dispense controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(2), and 846; 49 *1025 counts of unlawful dispensation of controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)

HAYNES, Circuit Judge: Robert Frasearelli is a federal prisoner who was transferred to the United States *703 from Mexico to continue serving a Mexican sentence for “qualified homicide committed with advantage.” Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A(b)(1)(A), the United States Parole Commission (the “Commis

Opinion by Judge RYMER. RYMER, Circuit Judge: This appeal turns on the construction and interpretation of local law by the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). We must decide whether the CNMI Supreme Court violated Isidro Lizama’s due process rights by upholding Regulation 8301, a CNMI Revenue and Taxation Regulation giv

OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge: The Sixth Amendment and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (“the Jury Selection Act”) afford criminal defendants “the right to be tried by an impartial jury drawn from sources reflecting a fair cross section of the community.” Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314, 319, 130 S.Ct. 1382, 176 L.Ed.2d 249 (2010). Our circuit precedent required courts to evaluate ch