Cases

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan December 5, 2012 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, the en banc court affirmed the Eastern District of Louisiana’s judgment in United States v. Wright, No. 09-CR-103 (E.D.La. Dec. 16, 2009), and vacated the Eastern District of Texas’s judgment in United States v. Paroline,

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by KING, JERRY E. SMITH and GRAVES, Circuit Judges: I agree with my colleagues in the majority that we should grant mandamus in In re Amy and remand for entry of a restitution award.1 I also agree that we should vacate the award entered in Wright and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2020-EC-00982-SCT DR. OLIVER JOHNSON AND CHAUNCY WRIGHT v. WILLIAM BROCK AND JAMES WILSON, SR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/15/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JEFF WEILL, SR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: WALTER HOWARD ZINN, JR. ANDREW N. ALEXANDER, III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WASHIN

Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC16-1518 ____________ JAMES BARRY WRIGHT, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF MIAMI GARDENS, etc., et al., Respondents. [September 15, 2016] LEWIS, J. This case is b

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED111156 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County v. ) Cause No. 20SL-CR02490-

253 P.3d 838 (2011) 2011 MT 92 360 Mont. 246 STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Timothy Michael WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. No. DA 10-0026. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs December 15, 2010. Decided May 3, 2011. *839 For Appellant: Nancy

JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES, District Judge. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge having been considered, no objections thereto having been filed, and finding that same is supported by the law and the record in this matter, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants’ Joint Mqtion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31] is hereby GRANTED, and judgment is entered

JOHNSON, Justice. | defendant, Michael Anthony Wright, was convicted by a jury of aggravated incest and sentenced to eighteen years im*310prisonment at hard labor. Finding the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence which was inadmissible pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence article 412.2, and in denying the defendant’s related motions for mistrial, the cour

668 F.3d 776 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-31215. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 25, 2012. Brian Marshall Klebba, Diane Hollenshead Copes (argued), James R. Mann, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, LA, Michael A. Rotker, Crim. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for P

PER CURIAM: Michael Wright pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the district court ordered Wright to pay $529,661 in restitution to one of the children, “Amy,” portrayed in some of the images Wright possessed. Wright appeals this restitution order, arguing that § 2259 includes a proximate causation requirement and that the restit

(2008) MICHAEL J. WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellant, v. KARA HOMES, INC. and Kara at Hawkins Ridge, LLC, Appellee. Michael J. Wright Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Kara Homes, Inc. and Kara at Navasink, LLC, Appellee. Michael J. Wright Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Kara Homes, Inc. and Kara at Glen Eyre, LLC, Appellee. Michael J. Wright Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Kara Homes, Inc

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lord Versatile appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Versatile v. Wright, No. 3:

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Shelton v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir.2012); State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012). TORPY, PALMER, and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.

BOGGS, Judge. We granted the application for interlocutory review filed by Drumm Corp. f/k/a Drumm Investors, LLC (“Drumm”) following the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because Drumm does not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the State of Georgia, we reverse. “A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must be granted if there are insufficient f

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lord Versatile appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Versatile v. Wright, No. 3:

SCALES, J. Appellant, plaintiff below, James Barry Wright, appeals the trial court’s non-final order denying Wright’s motion that sought emergency injunctive and mandamus relief, to wit, requiring the Miami Gardens City Clerk and the Dade County Supervisor of Elections to place Wright on the list of qualified candidates for the August 30, 2016 City of Miami Gardens Mayoral Elect

799 F.Supp.2d 1 (2011) Tonda WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-901 (JEB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 29, 2011. *3 Mark R. Millstein, Millstein Law Offices, Baltimore, MD, Stephen Sills Millstein, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Heather R. Skeele

BOGUE, Senior District Judge. The defendants appeal the district court’s 2 denial of their summary judgment motion. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. I. On October 27, 1995, a plain clothed police officer, defendant Wright, and three uniformed officers, including defend

MEMORANDUM *** The Appellant, James Wright, filed an action in district court seeking review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying him Social Security benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381a. The district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and Wright appeals. We review de *751novo the d